Hi Jingrong, Thank you for your reply; we will leave those as is in the document.
We will move this document forward in the publication process once RFC-to-be 9855 has completed AUTH48. The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9860 Thank you for your time, Kaelin Foody RFC Production Center > On Sep 21, 2025, at 11:38 PM, Jingrong Xie <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Kaelin, > > Thank you for updating my email address. > I would prefer to keep the email and affiliation in the document[1] as-is, to > reflect the fact where&when my contribution as a co-author were mostly made. > > [1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9860.html > > Thanks, > Jingrong > > From: Kaelin Foody <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, September 19, 2025 20:16 > To: Jingrong Xie <[email protected]>; Mike McBride > <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; > [email protected] <[email protected]>; > [email protected] <[email protected]>; > [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] > <[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]> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9860 <draft-ietf-pim-mofrr-tilfa-14> for your > review > 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]
