I approve publication.
On Tuesday, May 20, 2025 at 10:31:56 AM PDT, Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi all,
The changes look good to me.
You have my approval for publication.
Thanks for all the work on this Alice and Luc André!
Jorge
From: Luc Andre Burdet (lburdet) <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 at 9:58 AM
To: Alice Russo <[email protected]>, Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)
<[email protected]>, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <[email protected]>,
[email protected] <[email protected]>, Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
<[email protected]>
Cc: Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <[email protected]>,
[email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected]
<[email protected]>, Matthew Bocci (Nokia) <[email protected]>,
auth48archive@rfc-ed <[email protected]>, RFC Editor
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9722 <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-12>
for your review
|
|
CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links
or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information.
|
Hi Alice,
Sorry, I did not notice that you were waiting on further confirmation for these
changes; Yes they look OK to me
> Additional changes were:
> - capitalized 'field' in the title of Figure 4.
> - added 'the' to 'the Time Synchronization capability' (2 instances) to match
> usage of the definite article later in this document.
Regards,
Luc André
|
Luc André Burdet | [email protected] | Tel: +1 613 254 4814
|
From: Alice Russo <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 at 12:54
To: Patrice Brissette (pbrisset) <[email protected]>, Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
<[email protected]>, Luc Andre Burdet (lburdet) <[email protected]>,
[email protected] <[email protected]>, Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
<[email protected]>
Cc: Gunter Van De Velde (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <[email protected]>,
[email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected]
<[email protected]>, Matthew Bocci (Nokia) <[email protected]>,
auth48archive@rfc-ed <[email protected]>, RFC Editor
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9722 <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-12>
for your review
Authors,
This is a reminder that we await word from you regarding this document's
readiness for publication as an RFC. The files are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722.txt
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722.xml (source)
Diff files of all changes from the approved Internet-Draft:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff files of AUTH48 changes only:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722-auth48diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side)
This page shows the AUTH48 status of your document:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9722
Thank you.
RFC Editor/ar
> On May 9, 2025, at 12:02 PM, Alice Russo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Luc André and Gunter (as AD)*,
>
> * Gunter, please review Section 2.3 and let us know if you approve the
> changes pasted below (also shown in the diff files). See Luc André's reply
> for context.
>
> Original:
> Item 9. in Section 2.1 of [RFC8584], the list "Corresponding actions
>
> when transitions are performed or states are entered/exited" is
> changed as follows:
>
> 9. DF_CALC on CALCULATED: Mark the election result for the VLAN or
> VLAN Bundle.
>
> 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.
>
> 9.3 Assume the role of NDF for the local PE concerning the VLAN
> or VLAN Bundle, and transition to the DF_DONE state.
>
> 9.4 Assume the role of DF for the local PE concerning the VLAN
> or VLAN Bundle, and transition to the DF_DONE state.
>
> Current:
> Item 9 in Section 2.1 of [RFC8584], in the list "Corresponding
> actions when transitions are performed or states are entered/exited",
> is changed as follows:
>
> | 9. DF_CALC on CALCULATED: Mark the election result for the VLAN
> | or VLAN bundle.
> |
> | 9.1 If no Service Carving Time is present during the RCVD_ES
> | event of Action 11, proceed to step 9.4
> |
> | 9.2 If a Service Carving Time 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.
> |
> | 9.3 Assume the role of NDF for the local PE concerning the
> | VLAN or VLAN bundle. Wait the remaining skew time before
> | proceeding to step 9.4.
> |
> | 9.4 Assume the election result's role (DF or NDF) for the
> | local PE concerning the VLAN or VLAN bundle and
> | transition to the DF_DONE state.
>
>
> Luc André,
> Thank you for providing the updated XML.
>
> Re: "Service Carving Time"
>> IANA should be updated
>
>
> IANA has completed the update on
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities.
>
>
> Additional changes were:
> - capitalized 'field' in the title of Figure 4.
> - added 'the' to 'the Time Synchronization capability' (2 instances) to match
> usage of the definite article later in this document.
>
>
> The revised files are here (please refresh):
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722.txt
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722.pdf
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722.xml
>
> This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722-diff.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>
> This diff file shows only the changes made during AUTH48 thus far:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722-auth48diff.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>
> We will wait to hear from you again and from your coauthors
> before continuing the publication process. This page shows
> the AUTH48 status of your document:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9722
>
> Thank you.
> RFC Editor/ar
>
>> On May 8, 2025, at 2:35 PM, Luc Andre Burdet (lburdet) <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> • I did a review of the changes from -12 to 9722 (using the diff you
>>linked to) and see appreciate all the editing effort that went into it. Looks
>>good to me!
>>
>> • Additional corrections between Draft9722 and Draft9722-1 are
>>included in the XML file attached and I have included also the side-by-side
>>diff.
>>
>> • For the figures I have adopted format/language similar to the
>>following document also in your edit queue – they are both updating the same
>>Extended community‘s bitmap field:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-13#name-evpn-bgp-attributes-extensi
>> Figure 2: Bitmap field in the DF Election Extended Community
>>
>> • Question 4 is correct, it is not missing ‘not’ but is indeed not the
>>clearest.
>> The point here VLANs transitioning to DF wait an extra skew additional to
>> those transitioning to NDF which wait only SCT minus skew.
>> Reworded the section: does this help? @Gunter Van De Velde (Nokia -
>> BE/Antwerp) does this still reflect the change you asked for originally?
>>
>> • The document normalised terminology onto “Service Carving Time“ a
>>few versions back – IANA should be updated and I did a sweep in the XML for
>>“Service Carving Timestamp” to remove all instances I previously missed.
>>
>> • This document is OK with the 8584 errata, the update is to the state
>>machine part not the HRW algo.
>>
>> • I could not find any “DF Election” so I believe you have fixed this
>>one, and I normalized ‘fraction’ to just actually use RFC5905 capitalisation
>>and terminology.
>>
>> • Extended Community vs. extended community: I found RFC7432 just as
>>confusing and it *appears** the theme is to capitalize when referred to as a
>>noun, i.e. “this Extended Community” but when it is a noun’s complement it is
>>not capitalized? “the MAC Mobility extended community”.
>>
>> I have no strong position on this one (nor has reading RFC7432 lifted much
>> confusion...)
>>
>> Thanks Alice !
>>
>> Regards,
>> Luc André
>>
>> Luc André Burdet | [email protected] | Tel: +1 613 254 4814
>>
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
