Authors,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the
following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!--[rfced] May this be rephrased to the form of other definitions?
Original:
Service carving: DF Election is also referred to as "service
carving" in [RFC7432]
Perhaps:
Service carving: This refers to DF Election, as defined in
[RFC7432].
Or (if you decide to more closely match RFC 7432):
Perhaps:
Service carving: The default procedure for DF Election, as
detailed in [RFC7432].
-->
2) <!-- [rfced] Because RFC 5905 refers to the "prime epoch" as follows,
would you like to update this sentence to match RFC 5905 more closely?
>From [RFC5905]:
In the date and timestamp formats, the prime epoch, or base date of
era 0, is 0 h 1 January 1900 UTC, when all bits are zero.
Current:
The timestamp exchanged uses the NTP prime epoch of January 1, 1900
[RFC5905] and an adapted form of the 64-bit NTP Timestamp Format.
Perhaps:
The timestamp exchanged uses the NTP prime epoch of 0 h 1 January
1900 UTC [RFC5905] and an adapted form of the 64-bit NTP Timestamp
Format.
-->
3) <!-- [rfced] Regarding double figure titles.
a) FYI, for Figure 3, the title has been updated as follows
(rather than use two title lines). The figure appears to exactly
match Figure 4 in RFC 8584.
Current:
Figure 3: DF Election Extended Community (Figure 4 in RFC 8584)
b) FYI, for Figure 4, we have removed one line as follows because
Figure 5 in RFC 8584 has been updated, and it has a different title
("Figure 5: Bitmap Field in the DF Election Extended Community").
Original:
Figure 5: DF Election Capabilities
Figure 4: DF Election Capabilities
Current:
Figure 4: DF Election Capabilities
c) Would you like to make any of the following changes for clarity?
- update the figure title as follows:
Figure 4: DF Election Capabilities (Updating Figure 5 in RFC 8584)
- or add lead-in text before Figure 4, such as the following:
For the Bitmap field (2 octets), Figure 5 from [RFC8584] is
updated as follows:
- or change to OLD/NEW format (where OLD is the figure from RFC 8584
and NEW is the updated figure)
-->
4) <!--[rfced] Section 2.3: the new text.
a) Is the word "not" missing in 9.1 or 9.2? In other words, should
they be different ("If x is present" and "If x is not present")?
b) Depending on your reply to the earlier question (#7),
please let us know how "SCT timestamp" should be updated here.
If this is intended to refer to the new Extended Community, and
the name in the IANA registry is correct, then perhaps it would be
updated as follows?
Original:
9.1 If an SCT timestamp is present during the RCVD_ES event of
Action 11, wait until the time indicated by the SCT minus
skew before proceeding to step 9.3.
9.2 If an SCT timestamp is present during the RCVD_ES event of
Action 11, wait until the time indicated by the SCT before
proceeding to step 9.4.
Perhaps:
9.1 If a Service Carving Timestamp is present during the RCVD_ES event of
Action 11, wait until the time indicated by the SCT minus
skew before proceeding to step 9.3.
9.2 If a Service Carving Timestamp is present during the RCVD_ES event of
Action 11, wait until the time indicated by the SCT before
proceeding to step 9.4.
-->
5) <!--[rfced] FYI, we updated "to partner PE1" (two instances) for clarity.
We assume the meaning is "its partner PE1" rather than "to partner with
PE1" or similar. Please review.
Original:
3. Advertisement: PE2 advertises RT-4, sent at t=100, to partner
PE1.
[...]
4. Advertisement: PE2 advertises RT-4, sent at t=100, with a target
SCT value of t=103 to partner PE1.
Current (parentheses as used in Section 3.1):
3. Advertisement: PE2 advertises RT-4, sent at t=100, to its partner
(PE1).
[...]
4. Advertisement: PE2 advertises RT-4, sent at t=100, with a target
SCT value of t=103 to its partner (PE1).
-->
6) <!--[rfced] Please clarify "the negative effect of the timer to allow".
May it be updated as shown or otherwise?
Original:
Using the SCT approach, the negative effect of the timer to allow the
reception of Ethernet Segment RT-4 from other PE nodes is mitigated.
Perhaps:
The SCT approach mitigates the negative effect of the timer
allowing the reception of Ethernet Segment RT-4 from other PE nodes.
-->
7) <!--[rfced] "Service Carving Time" vs. "Service Carving Timestamp"
The document and the IANA registry do not match regarding the name
of the new BGP EVPN Extended Community; which one is correct?
(Please see A vs. B below.) Based on your reply, please
review other sections for updates (examples below).
A) Original
0x0F Service Carving Time
B) IANA registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/)
0x0F Service Carving Timestamp
Examples of potential updates in Sections 2 and 2.1.
Original:
A new BGP EVPN Extended Community, the Service Carving Time is ...
If the IANA registry is correct:
A new BGP EVPN Extended Community, the Service Carving Timestamp, is ...
Original:
Figure 2: Service Carving Time
If the IANA registry is correct:
Figure 2: Service Carving Timestamp
Original:
which are encoded in the Service Carving Time as follows:
If the IANA registry is correct:
which are encoded in the Service Carving Timestamp as follows:
-->
8) <!-- [rfced] Because this document updates RFC 8584, please
review the errata reported for RFC 8584
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc8584)
and let us know if any updates are needed for this document.
Specifically, please review EID 7811 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7811)
regarding Section 3.2 (HRW Algorithm for EVPN DF Election).
The text from the errata report does not appear in this document;
however, the HRW algorithm is mentioned.
(It appears no actions are needed for EID 5900, as
the term "Broadcast Domain (BD)" is not used in this document.)
-->
9) <!-- [rfced] Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to
be capitalized inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let
us know if/how they may be made consistent.
DF Election vs. DF election
(seems lowercase is used in RFC 8584 in running text, i.e.,
outside titles or proper nouns like "DF Election Extended Community")
Extended Community vs. extended community
Fractional Seconds vs. fractional seconds
Time Synchronization vs. time synchronization
-->
10) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online
Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically
result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers.
For example, please consider whether the following should be updated:
"blackholing" (one instance):
* Prolonged traffic blackholing, if the timer value is too long
-->
Thank you.
RFC Editor/st/ar
On Apr 28, 2025, [email protected] wrote:
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2025/04/28
RFC Author(s):
--------------
Instructions for Completing AUTH48
Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing
your approval.
Planning your review
---------------------
Please review the following aspects of your document:
* RFC Editor questions
Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
follows:
<!-- [rfced] ... -->
These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
* Changes submitted by coauthors
Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you
agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
* Content
Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to:
- IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
- contact information
- references
* Copyright notices and legends
Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
(TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
* Semantic markup
Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of
content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode>
and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at
<https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
* Formatted output
Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is
reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting
limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
Submitting changes
------------------
To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties
include:
* your coauthors
* [email protected] (the RPC team)
* other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
* [email protected], which is a new archival mailing list
to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion
list:
* More info:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
* The archive itself:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
* Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out
of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you
have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
[email protected] will be re-added to the CC list and
its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
An update to the provided XML file
— OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format
Section # (or indicate Global)
OLD:
old text
NEW:
new text
You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text,
and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in
the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
Approving for publication
--------------------------
To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
Files
-----
The files are available here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9722
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC9722 (draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-12)
Title : Fast Recovery for EVPN Designated Forwarder Election
Author(s) : P. Brissette, A. Sajassi, LA. Burdet, Ed., J. Drake, J.
Rabadan
WG Chair(s) : Matthew Bocci, Stephane Litkowski, Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang
Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter Van de Velde
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
