Authors, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!-- [rfced] May we update the document title as follows to improve readability? Original: Segment Routing over IPv6 Argument Signaling for BGP Services Perhaps: Argument Signaling for BGP Services in Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) --> 2) <!-- [rfced] We updated "with argument" here to "with an argument". Let us know if it should be "with arguments" instead. Original: Section 6.3 of [RFC9252] specifies that the SRv6 Service SID used in the data plane is derived by applying a bitwise logical-OR operation between the SID with argument signaled via Route Type 1 and the SID with the 'locator + function' components signaled via Route Type 3. Updated: Section 6.3 of [RFC9252] specifies that the SRv6 Service SID used in the data plane is derived by applying a bitwise logical-OR operation between the SID with an argument signaled via Route Type 1 and the SID with the 'Locator + Function' components signaled via Route Type 3. --> 3) <!-- [rfced] These sentences may be difficult to follow because of the two instances of "based on...". How may we update to improve readability? Original: Based on the above procedures, the SRv6 Service SID encoding for the data plane without an ESI Filtering ARG, based on the examples in Figure 1 and Figure 3, is as follows: ... Based on the above procedures, the SRv6 Service SID encoding for the data plane along with an ESI Filtering ARG, based on the examples in Figure 2 and Figure 4, is as follows: Perhaps: Using the procedures above with the examples in Figures 1 and 3, the SRv6 Service SID encoding for the data plane without an ESI Filtering ARG is as follows: ... Using the procedures above with the examples in Figures 2 and 4, the SRv6 Service SID encoding for the data plane along with an ESI Filtering ARG is as follows: --> 4) <!-- [rfced] We have a few question about the text below. a) The following sentences include the descriptions of EVPN Route Types 1 and/or 3. Note that not all mentions of EVPN Route Types 1 and 3 include the descriptions. Would removing the descriptions in these sentences improve readability? If needed, perhaps the descriptions can be added to a Terminology section (which could be added as a new Section 1.2) or included in the first instance. b) Also, several forms are used for the description of EVPN Route Type 1: Ethernet Auto-Discovery per Ethernet Segment (A-D per ES) Ethernet Auto-Discovery (A-D) per ES Ethernet Auto-Discovery per Ethernet Segment Route Should the definition match what is listed in the IANA registry at <https://www.iana.org/assignments/evpn>? RFC 7432 and IANA registry define EVPN Route Type 1 as "Ethernet Auto-discovery", but RFC 7432 also discusses "Ethernet A-D per ES route" and "Ethernet A-D per EVI route". Original: As specified in [RFC9252], the LOC:FUNC portion of the SRv6 SID with End.DT2M behavior is signaled via EVPN Route Type 3 (Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag Route), while the Ethernet Segment Identifier (ESI) Filtering ARG (denoted as Arg.FE2 in [RFC8986]) is signaled via EVPN Route Type 1 (Ethernet Auto-Discovery per Ethernet Segment (A-D per ES) Route). In deployments where a mix of compressed and uncompressed SIDs is present, the behaviors advertised in the Ethernet Auto-Discovery (A-D) per ES Routes (EVPN Route Type 1) and Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag Routes (EVPN Route Type 3) MAY consist of a combination of compressed and uncompressed End.DT2M behavior flavors. Ethernet Auto-Discovery (A-D) per ES Routes (EVPN Route Type 1), as defined in [RFC7432], are utilized to enable split-horizon filtering and fast convergence in multi-homing scenarios. The Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag Route (EVPN Route Type 3), as defined in [RFC7432], is used to advertise multicast traffic reachability information via MP-BGP to all other PE routers within a given EVPN instance. When ESI Filtering is in use, the ESI Filtering ARG of the SRv6 Service SID is signaled through EVPN Route Type 1 (Ethernet Auto- Discovery per Ethernet Segment Route). Perhaps: As specified in [RFC9252], the LOC:FUNC portion of the SRv6 SID with End.DT2M behavior is signaled via EVPN Route Type 3, while the Ethernet Segment Identifier (ESI) Filtering ARG (denoted as Arg.FE2 in [RFC8986]) is signaled via EVPN Route Type 1. In deployments where a mix of compressed and uncompressed SIDs is present, the behaviors advertised in EVPN Route Type 1 and EVPN Route Type 3 MAY consist of a combination of compressed and uncompressed End.DT2M behavior flavors. EVPN Route Type 1, as defined in [RFC7432], is utilized to enable split-horizon filtering and fast convergence in multi-homing scenarios. EVPN Route Type 3, as defined in [RFC7432], is used to advertise multicast traffic reachability information via MP-BGP to all other PE routers within a given EVPN instance. When ESI Filtering is in use, the ESI Filtering ARG of the SRv6 Service SID is signaled through EVPN Route Type 1. --> 5) <!-- [rfced] Terminology a) We updated two instance of "SRv6 Endpoint behavior" to "SRv6 Endpoint Behavior" to match usage elsewhere in the document and in RFC 9252. Should the two instances of "endpoint behavior" in the sentences below also be updated to "SRv6 Endpoint Behavior" (capitalized and prefaced with "SRv6")? Note that we did not make any changes to "End.DT2M behavior". Original: As specified in Section 3.2.1 of [RFC9252], the SRv6 SID Structure Sub-Sub-TLV MUST be included when signaling an SRv6 SID corresponding to an endpoint behavior that supports argument. ... While the focus is primarily on the signaling of the End.DT2M SRv6 Endpoint Behavior via EVPN Route Types 1 and 3, the procedures described herein are also applicable to other similar endpoint behaviors with arguments that may be signaled using BGP. b) We see that "BGP Prefix SID Attr" is used in the figures. Should this align with usage in general text? That is, should it be updated to "BGP Prefix-SID Attribute"? Also, should "BGP Prefix-SID Attribute" be updated to "BGP Prefix-SID attribute" (lowercase "attribute")? We see that the lowercase "attribute" is used in this context in RFC 9252 and other published RFCs. Current: BGP Prefix SID Attr (in figures) BGP Prefix-SID Attribute (in text) Perhaps: BGP Prefix-SID attribute c) We note that "Overlay Service" is capitalized in this document, but it is lowercase in RFC 9252. Would you like to use the lowercase "overlay service" for consistency with RFC 9252? d) We note inconsistencies in the terms below throughout the text. Should these be uniform? If so, please let us know which form is preferred. Route Type 1 EVPN Route Type 1 Route Type 3 EVPN Route Type 3 Leaf leaf e) We updated the following term as shown below. Let us know any concerns. Global Internet Routing > global Internet routing Note: Per usage in RFCs 9505, 9199, and others. --> 6) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for the following abbreviation(s) per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. Multiprotocol BGP (MP-BGP) --> 7) <!-- [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. Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should still be reviewed as a best practice. --> 8) <!-- [rfced] Please review each artwork element in the xml file. Specifically, should the artwork elements in Figures 1-6 be tagged as sourcecode or another element? --> Thank you. RFC Editor/rv On Jul 10, 2025, at 9:44 AM, [email protected] wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/07/10 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/rfc9819.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Alt-diff of the text (allows you to more easily view changes where text has been deleted or moved): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819-alt-diff.html Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9819 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC9819 (draft-ietf-bess-bgp-srv6-args-10) Title : Segment Routing over IPv6 Argument Signaling for BGP Services Author(s) : K. Talaulikar, K. Raza, J. Rabadan, W. Lin 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]
