Approve. Thank you for all of the work in progressing this draft.
mike On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 1:49 PM Kaelin Foody <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Changwang, > > Thank you for your reply. We have updated the document accordingly. > > We will await approvals from each of the parties listed on the AUTH48 > status page prior to moving forward with publication. > > The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9860 > > Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not > make changes once it has been published as an RFC. > > — FILES (please refresh): — > > The updated files have been posted here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9860.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9860.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9860.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9860.xml > > The relevant diff files have been posted here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9860-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 > changes only) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9860-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH 48 > changes side by side) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9860-diff.html (all changes) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9860-rfcdiff.html (all changes side > by side) > > Thank you, > > Kaelin Foody > RFC Production Center > > > > On Sep 16, 2025, at 11:44 AM, linchangwang <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hi Kaelin & Alanna, > > > > Thanks for your help with this document. > > Please check inline below for responses. > > > > Thanks, > > Changwang (on behalf of co-authors) > > > > > > > > 发件人: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > 发送时间: 2025年9月16日 5:57 > > 收件人: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; linchangwang (RD) < > [email protected]> > > 抄送: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > > 主题: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9860 <draft-ietf-pim-mofrr-tilfa-14> for your > review > > > > > > Authors, > > > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as > necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file. > > > > 1) <!-- [rfced] Would you like the references to be alphabetized or left > in their current order? --> > > > > Changwang > I would like it alphabetized. > > > > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in > the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> > > > > Changwang > PIM、MoFRR、LFA、TI-LFA、SR-MPLS、SRv6、RPF Vector、Join attribute > > > > 3) <!--[rfced] For clarity, should "the Join" be updated to "the Join > packet"? > > > > Original: > > If the nodes do not understand > > the RPF Vector attribute in the PIM Join packet, then it must discard > > the RPF Vector attribute because failing to remove the RPF Vectors > > could cause upstream nodes to send the Join back toward these nodes > > causing loops. > > > > Perhaps: > > If the nodes do not understand > > the RPF Vector Attribute in the PIM Join packet, then they must discard > > the RPF Vector Attribute because failing to remove the RPF Vectors > > could cause upstream nodes to send the Join packet back toward these > nodes > > causing loops. > > --> > > Changwang > Ack > > > > > > 4) <!-- [rfced] To avoid using an RFC as an adjective, may we update the > instances of "[RFC7431] MoFRR" in the text below as follows? > > > > Original: > > However, the [RFC7431] MoFRR mechanism, which selects the secondary > > multicast next-hop based solely on the loop-free alternate fast > > reroute defined in [RFC7431], has limitations in certain multicast > > deployment scenarios (see Section 2). > > ... > > Consequently, the [RFC7431] MoFRR functionality in PIM is applicable > > only in network topologies where LFA is feasible. > > ... > > The limitations of the [RFC7431] MoFRR applicability can be > > illustrated using the example network depicted in Figure 1. > > ... > > In this scenario, the [RFC7431] MoFRR operates effectively. > > ... > > In this case, the [RFC7431] MoFRR cannot calculate a secondary UMH. > > Similarly, for multicast source S3 and receiver R, the [RFC7431] MoFRR > > mechanism is ineffective. > > ... > > For instance, in the network illustrated in Figure 1, the secondary > > path for the PIM Join packet towards multicast source S2 cannot be > > computed by [RFC7431] MoFRR, as previously described. > > > > Perhaps: > > However, the MoFRR mechanism [RFC7431], which selects the secondary... > > ... > > Consequently, the MoFRR functionality [RFC7431] in PIM is applicable... > > ... > > The limitations of the MoFRR applicability [RFC7431] can be > illustrated... > > ... > > In this scenario, MoFRR [RFC7431] operates effectively. > > ... > > In this case, MoFRR [RFC7431] cannot calculate a secondary UMH. > > Similarly, for multicast source S3 and receiver R, the MoFRR > > mechanism [RFC7431] is ineffective. > > ... > > For instance, in the network illustrated in Figure 1, the secondary > > path for the PIM Join packet towards multicast source S2 cannot be > > computed by MoFRR [RFC7431], as previously described. > > --> > > Changwang > Ack > > > > 5) <!-- [rfced] We note that the following terminology appears to be > used inconsistently throughout the document. Please review these > occurrences and let us know if/how they may be made consistent. > > > > Node SID vs. NodeSID > > Segment List vs. segment list > > --> > > Changwang > Use "Node SID" and " segment list ". > > > > > > 6) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for abbreviations upon > first use per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review > each expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. > > > > Reverse Path Forwarding (RPF) > > Remote LFA (RLFA) > > PIM - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) > > --> > > Changwang > 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. > > > > a) For example, please consider whether "native" should be updated in > the text > > below: > > > > This mechanism is applicable to PIM networks, including cases where PIM > > operates natively over IP in Segment Routing (SR) networks. > > > > --> > > Changwang> This mechanism is applicable to PIM networks, including cases > where PIM > > operates directly over IP in Segment Routing (SR) networks. > > > > > > b) In addition, please consider whether "tradition" should be updated > for clarity. > > While the NIST website > > < > https://web.archive.org/web/20250214092458/https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructions#table1 > > > > indicates that this term is potentially biased, it is also ambiguous. > > "Tradition" is a subjective term, as it is not the same for everyone: > > > > However, the traditional LFA does not function properly for the > secondary > > path because the shortest path to R2 from R5 (or from R4) still > traverses > > the R6-R2 link. > > --> > > > > Changwang > However, the conventional LFA does not function properly > for the secondary > > path because the shortest path to R2 from R5 (or from R4) still > traverses > > the R6-R2 link. > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > Kaelin Foody and Alanna Paloma > > RFC Production Center > > > > > > On Sep 15, 2025, at 2:55 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > > > Updated 2025/09/15 > > > > 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/rfc9860.xml > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9860.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9860.pdf > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9860.txt > > > > Diff file of the text: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9860-diff.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9860-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > > > Diff of the XML: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9860-xmldiff1.html > > > > > > Tracking progress > > ----------------- > > > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9860 > > > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > > > RFC Editor > > > > -------------------------------------- > > RFC9860 (draft-ietf-pim-mofrr-tilfa-14) > > > > Title : Multicast-only Fast Reroute Based on Topology > Independent Loop-free Alternate (TI-LFA) Fast Reroute > > Author(s) : Y. Liu, M. McBride, Z. Zhang, J. Xie, C. Lin > > WG Chair(s) : Stig Venaas, Mike McBride > > > > Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter Van de Velde > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 本邮件及其附件含有新华三集团的保密信息，仅限于发送给上面地址中列出 > > 的个人或群组。禁止任何其他人以任何形式使用（包括但不限于全部或部分地泄露、复制、 > > 或散发）本邮件中的信息。如果您错收了本邮件，请您立即电话或邮件通知发件人并删除本 > > 邮件！ > > This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from > New H3C, which is > > intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. > Any use of the > > information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, > total or partial > > disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the > intended > > recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please > notify the sender > > by phone or email immediately and delete it! > > >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
