Hi Authors, This is a friendly reminder that we await answers to the questions below and your review of the document before continuing with the publication process.
Thank you, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Aug 19, 2025, at 1:04 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] Would you like the references to be alphabetized > or left in their current order? > --> > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in > the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> > > > 3) <!-- [rfced] We have removed "(IP DA)" as the abbreviation does not seem > to be used in this document. DA (by itself) also does not appear. > Elsewhere, the text refers to "destination IP address". Are these the > same? Should the definition for G-traffic be updated for consistency? > > Original: > * G-traffic: any frame with an IP payload whose IP Destination > Address (IP DA) is a multicast group G. > > Perhaps: > G-traffic: Any frame with an IP payload whose destination IP address > is a multicast group G. > > --> > > > 4) <!-- [rfced] Should "destinated" be "destined? > > Original: > In these scenarios, the upstream PE pushes > the S-ESI labels on packets not only destinated for PEs > sharing the ES but also for all PEs within the tenant > domain. > --> > > > 5) <!-- [rfced] Since RFC 9573 uses the term "Context-Specific Label Space > ID Extended Community" rather than "Context Label Space ID Extended > Community", may we update to match? Note this would also update the > following terms to the term on the right: > > context label spaces > context-specific label spaces > context label space ID > context-specific label space ID > --> > > > 6) <!-- [rfced] Should "Flag" be part of the name? The other registered > values do not include "Flag". It seems redundant, since it is a registry > of flags. If "Flag" is to be removed, we will ask IANA to update their > registry accordingly. > > Original Table 2: > +=====+==============+===============+ > | Bit | Name | Reference | > +=====+==============+===============+ > | 5 | ESI-DCB Flag | This Document | > --> > > > 7) <!-- [rfced] Throughout the text, several abbreviations are introduced > but not used or are repeatedly defined. Please consider whether the > abbreviated form should be used in most cases once the term has been > introduced. > > For example: > Attachment Circuit (AC) > Assisted Replication (AR) > Bit Indexed Explicit Replication (BIER) > Domain-wide Common Block (DCB) > Designated Forwarder (DF) > Ethernet Segment (ES) > Ethernet Segment Identifier (ESI) > Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag (IMET) > Ingress Replication (IR) > Supplementary Broadcast Domain (SBD) > Supplementary Broadcast Domain Route Target (SBD-RT) > Selective Multicast Ethernet Tag (SMET) > --> > > > 8) <!-- [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. > > Downstream vs. downstream > ESI Label vs. ESI label > Upstream vs. upstream > --> > > > 9) <!-- [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. > --> > > > Thank you. > > Sarah Tarrant and Sandy Ginoza > RFC Production Center > > > > On Aug 19, 2025, at 10:59 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > Updated 2025/08/19 > > 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/rfc9856.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9856.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9856.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9856.txt > > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9856-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9856-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff of the XML: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9856-xmldiff1.html > > > Tracking progress > ----------------- > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9856 > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > > -------------------------------------- > RFC 9856 (draft-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source-15) > > Title : Multicast Source Redundancy in EVPN Networks > Author(s) : J. Rabadan, J. Kotalwar, S. Sathappan, Z. Zhang, 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]
