Hi all, Thank you for your responses and approvals.
Jingrong: We have updated your email address in our database. Would you like us to update your email and/or affiliation in the document as well? Sandy: We have updated your email address in our database and in the document as requested. We now have all necessary approvals and have marked them on the AUTH48 status page for this document. We will move this document forward in the publication process along with RFC-to-be 9855 once it has completed AUTH48. Thank you all for your time and attention during AUTH48. Kaelin Foody RFC Production Center — 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) > On Sep 18, 2025, at 11:58 PM, Jingrong Xie <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Tianran, Mike, Yisong, and Kaelin: > I have read the rfc9860.txt and have no further comments. > Thank you all for the work in progressing this draft! > Jingrong Xie > 2025/09/19 > > From: Tianran Zhou <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, September 19, 2025 02:26 > To: Mike McBride <[email protected]> > Cc: Zhukeyi(Kaiyin,Datacom Standard&Patent) <[email protected]>; > [email protected]<[email protected]> > Subject: 答复: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9860 <draft-ietf-pim-mofrr-tilfa-14> for your > review > Hi Jingrong, > Please reply to the auth48. > Tianran > 发件人: Mike McBride <[email protected]> > 发送时间: 2025年9月19日 10:17 > 收件人: Tianran Zhou <[email protected]> > 主题: Fwd: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9860 <draft-ietf-pim-mofrr-tilfa-14> for your > review > Hi Tianran, > Jingrong's email is bouncing: [email protected]. Could you please > forward this to him so we can finish AUTH48 for this draft? > thanks, > mike > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: linchangwang <[email protected]> > Date: Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 7:08 PM > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9860 <draft-ietf-pim-mofrr-tilfa-14> for your > review > To: Kaelin Foody <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, > [email protected]<[email protected]>, > [email protected] > <[email protected]>,[email protected] > <[email protected]>, [email protected]<[email protected]>, > [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, > [email protected]<[email protected]>, > [email protected] <[email protected]> > > > Hi Kaelin, > > > Approve. > Thank you for all of the work in progressing this draft. > > Thanks, > Changwang > > > -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: Kaelin Foody <[email protected]> > 发送时间: 2025年9月19日 4:49 > 收件人: linchangwang (RD) <[email protected]> > 抄送: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [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 > > > 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 > > Changwang> 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-instruction > > s#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-4Q9l2USxI > > Ae6P8O4Zc > > > > * 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]
