Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@mail2.ietf.org Delivered-To: idr@mail2.ietf.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A91C09AA12E5 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2025 01:42:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lW8ohiRRp4aQ for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2025 01:42:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm1-x329.google.com (mail-wm1-x329.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::329]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 287B79AA12DE for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2025 01:42:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm1-x329.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-4779cc419b2so33747605e9.3 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2025 01:42:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1765791733; x=1766396533; darn=ietf.org; h=content-language:thread-index:mime-version:message-id:date:subject :in-reply-to:references:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=xEKzPth5wyp3jw3zMbiimCn8MB2VhEVpYdn1dIWcO+w=; b=ET1S4IY4eKgrWctShicng9CHqeA774Zig9c7Z3VuTw7PKdq2o9PFQvwYQCdklG4dht Dd1A1jiFeerU1SGxGddT1ZO2C7qKSux/Eax0RaaQGIX2D4zloJQ2dcQbaNS9kkwwLnYb u24UqqnSJ521IXHfwZwvDX6ukZ9oaq2ttX6iUU/vVrJgclanvcbUTYEDdV4qxX/BPUmY UXNq6+c9Df9tRIYf/4zS+LWUWqKFW5nAplK5wmime/ok2QpgRr3qNm7Gk43a6gD9M+Qy XjdokWWP/Q2ZPHKhOrgx5N2byOwXZzZFaI4rrimuSrIV5GujS2WLDQn+E+q6HpfScVIE LhrA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1765791733; x=1766396533; h=content-language:thread-index:mime-version:message-id:date:subject :in-reply-to:references:cc:to:from:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=xEKzPth5wyp3jw3zMbiimCn8MB2VhEVpYdn1dIWcO+w=; b=Q04xPOxk+CsTouvz7QncBLt4HQI/a3wOkUMHgtOf29ouktBvGL/Z1Jr81lG5sAyRWo OxQLgvcsmVvilirwY03C46XpRCbV0W4Oq/qyuBS7yBFyzQGxlknMJZYKeQ4j53jmQ8Rs kmVoYaDEWMzJqMTYGMPbxVBEUZmyFK3QN1FZTaz+FA4JydM5Eq3hKZNiVj1bxa5UGQnS 5DHOjLa02pZ8GwL77/0zCTNVOgo9BafOhTKNihSkUquQPJjtsNh8AymKdJlk99miOfAr fRQNfH9OXkSSQS1frcCYFzuq+bwf9rVBQfKZwjUpLds0Ju0ZiAjr3pKwXCZxqrKRc0sn NLEQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUvChM2QcK7Sl4gbOzF5BMlZfjxyv3SasA3/0RUCEqzrvK1ebiQjnmes+lKpOEapECJUTg=@ietf.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzjywNG2TgBNOvfWkOiM4ZvMsKE0jNMeqf8kN5ulvMS/rijUIRp Dd5459ObAYDKhavF9iQEGV/t94DuUylIH9Ze4ZrhdB1JrnVIzWtDweWpyY8C X-Gm-Gg: AY/fxX6yCVSa7j87+ZwBC7C23bo4KGNchtC8M88YjWm8oN/BoFtJQAS/hwv8nL4wYgm Uc98WtJX3Eyh43LUMUBG+gPxWhpFyIAXDyH53AuuQoO9byaQ02qyCOLiQHOnOEAu5aoMBj8YRhG ivitGZ+LcI3+IoKVGZNqGrJmcXCzMoH28bq663Og+P2T5CdIoHH6AR6hoNbY69Rl9qjRxgedMyn nx0PlLDmkMs0EaEXpz5P8zsvS40dbedUGkCTBARTJFWE27LFARCKIxdyWZr8YVdYVeAiKPpcTrx M1iTLFNiI3dxWuzjPpSydTPjbiiyZDxmOZK+6ApBV0b50fa4OvmM4MPdNWZoRFY3KGX8KpMmlw5 63rkDtBGwFBdGVLEhkldAMmtw5RYqdDx7HtpVkiPIY7M3f3GPtrjmpfHI3C7eu8w0vA+D6rrEM5 ucdz7WSq3a588UzasKLaAq9NwFXyv6YEJOGO7Tm8oAjTpEPLO4TPd35dSd87jRplIEU1VyRQJOE Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEYgh0h3A8NUoPEm4CyCIkPV4NeSS4PHtzuXBGyKHslEZT6evXbHI51trHxT0IQzvVlpl0H+A== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:1992:b0:477:1ae1:fa5d with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-47a8f9055camr98281495e9.20.1765791732335; Mon, 15 Dec 2025 01:42:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from CSCOWPF4BBQ4D (lfbn-ren-1-1668-3.w86-253.abo.wanadoo.fr. [86.253.216.3]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ffacd0b85a97d-42fa8b85d1esm28417500f8f.26.2025.12.15.01.42.11 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 15 Dec 2025 01:42:11 -0800 (PST) From: To: "'Dongjie \(Jimmy\)'" , "'idr'" References: <834bfae9b2854393a028459f9a8601fb@huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <834bfae9b2854393a028459f9a8601fb@huawei.com> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2025 10:42:09 +0100 Message-ID: <004701dc6da7$1593dc50$40bb94f0$@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0048_01DC6DAF.77592EB0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQKHfPVaZKCSwekNzXLhrmLPq8oGhrPMS7NA Content-Language: fr Message-ID-Hash: 5VIQ4H2FKNCH66SA55O2C6AE24TMS4FU X-Message-ID-Hash: 5VIQ4H2FKNCH66SA55O2C6AE24TMS4FU X-MailFrom: slitkows.ietf@gmail.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-idr.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: 'idr-chairs' X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6 Precedence: list Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BIdr=5D_Re=3A_WG_last_call_and_IPR_call_for_draft-ietf-idr-rt-de?= =?utf-8?q?rived-community_=28December_11=2C_2025_to_January_5=2C_2026=29?= List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0048_01DC6DAF.77592EB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit HI Jie, Few comments: Section 3: * Two typos: s/Subt-Types/Sub-Types/g Section 4: * The fact that we consider the type being the first byte for most of the ext comms expect for IPv6 ones where we consider the two first bytes is really confusing (subtype is within type). I know that it's following how it's defined at IANA, but this is really creating confusion while RFC5701 still needs "subtype" field properly. Maybe at least for the example given about Type 0x0011, we could mention that we talk about sub-type 0x11 used for RT vs the general 0x02. Otherwise, we try to compare things that are not directly comparable. * "When a new type is defined and registered, the corresponding.", it's not clear what we are talking about, I guess we talk about new types of RT derived EC. The entire paragraph does not sound super clear to me. Can we simplify ? Previous paragraph says that we cannot guarantee subtype 0x02 for any new RT created, then we can say that similarly we cannot guarantee that new RT derived ECs, will get sub-type 0x15. BTW, wouldn't it be something we would like to enforce to simplify operation/understanding ? (so sub-type 0x02 is always RT, 0x15 always for RT-derived EC) Section 6 (Security): I agree that this document is not defining how these ECs are used, however, as they could potentially influence some indirect behaviors (not defined in this document), it should be good to mention that user should pay attention to stripping unintended received ECs from external peers. From: Dongjie (Jimmy) Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2025 2:35 AM To: idr Cc: idr-chairs Subject: [Idr] WG last call and IPR call for draft-ietf-idr-rt-derived-community (December 11, 2025 to January 5, 2026) This begins the working group last call for the draft on "Extended Communities Derived from Route Targets": https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rt-derived-community/ Due to the holiday season in the end of the year, this last call ends on January 5th, 2026 so as to give the working group time to review and comment. For purposes of the shepherd's report and according to IETF BCP 78/79, the authors are requested to declare whether they are aware of any undisclosed IPR covering this draft. Members of the working group are similarly obligated to report any IPR they are aware of as well. Best regards, Jie (as WG secretary & document shepherd) ------=_NextPart_000_0048_01DC6DAF.77592EB0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

HI = Jie,

 

Few = comments:

 

Section = 3:

  • Two typos: = s/Subt-Types/Sub-Types/g

 


Section = 4:

  • The fact that = we consider the type being the first byte for most of the ext comms = expect for IPv6 ones where we consider the two first bytes is really = confusing (subtype is within type). I know that it’s following how = it’s defined at IANA, but this is really creating confusion while = RFC5701 still needs “subtype” field properly. Maybe at least = for the example given about Type 0x0011, we could mention that we talk = about sub-type 0x11 used for RT vs the general 0x02. Otherwise, we try = to compare things that are not directly = comparable.

 

  • “When a = new type is defined and registered, the corresponding…”, = it’s not clear what we are talking about, I guess we talk about = new types of RT derived EC. The entire paragraph does not sound super = clear to me. Can we simplify ? Previous paragraph says that we cannot = guarantee subtype 0x02 for any new RT created, then we can say that = similarly we cannot guarantee that new RT derived ECs, will get sub-type = 0x15. BTW, wouldn’t it be something we would like to enforce to = simplify operation/understanding ? (so sub-type 0x02 is always RT, 0x15 = always for RT-derived EC)

 

 

Section 6 = (Security):

I agree that = this document is not defining how these ECs are used, however, as they = could potentially influence some indirect behaviors (not defined in this = document), it should be good to mention that user should pay attention = to stripping unintended received ECs from external = peers.

 

 

 

From:<= /b> = Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong=3D40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org> =
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2025 2:35 AM
To: idr = <idr@ietf.org>
Cc: idr-chairs = <idr-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: [Idr] WG last call and = IPR call for draft-ietf-idr-rt-derived-community (December 11, 2025 to = January 5, 2026)

 

This begins the working group last = call for the draft on “Extended = Communities Derived from Route Targets”: = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rt-derived-communit= y/

 

Due to the = holiday season in the end of the year, this last call ends on January = 5th, 2026 so as to give the working group time to review and = comment.

 

For = purposes of the shepherd's report and according to IETF BCP 78/79, the = authors are requested to declare whether they are aware of any = undisclosed IPR covering this draft. Members of the working group are = similarly obligated to report any IPR they are aware of as = well.

 

Best = regards,

Jie (as WG secretary & document = shepherd)

 

------=_NextPart_000_0048_01DC6DAF.77592EB0--