Hi Rebecca, Thanks for your help with this document. Please check inline below for responses.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 10:17 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > 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) > --> > KT> Ack > > > 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. > --> > KT> Ack > > > 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: > --> > KT> Ack > > > 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. > KT> I will defer this along with (b) below to Jorge for consistency across EVPN documents. > > 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. > --> > KT> I am ok with this change proposal, however I will defer this to Jorge for consistency with other EVPN specs since I do also see a mixed use of these terms in other documents. > > > 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. > > KT> Ack - please replace "endpoint behavior" with "SRv6 Endpoint Behavior" for consistency with RFC9252 > > 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 > KT> Ack > > > 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? > > KT> Ack - please change to lower case. > > 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 > > KT> Prefer to use EVPN Route Type for consistency > Leaf > leaf > > KT> It should be lowercase > > 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. > --> > KT> Ack > > > 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) > --> > KT> Ack > > > 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. > --> > KT> Thanks for the check > > > 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? > --> > KT> They are all artwork and not source code. Thanks, Ketan > > > 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]
