Hi Alice,
I agree with Ketan that the update of the title looks good. Thanks.
-Jie
> -Original Message-
> From: Ketan Talaulikar
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2025 1:49 PM
> To: Alice Russo
> Cc: Wanghaibo (Rainsword) ; Dongjie (Jimmy)
> ; Hantao(hantao,Datacom)
> ; chen@zte.com.cn;
Hi Alice,
This looks good to me.
Thanks,
Ketan
On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 4:11 AM Alice Russo
wrote:
> Authors,
>
> As we prepare this document for publication, may we update the title as
> follows in order to expand "SRv6"? If not, please make another suggestion.
>
> OLD:
> BGP Colored Prefix R
Hi Karen,
Thanks again for your help and your patience on this. Please check inline
below.
On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 4:20 AM Karen Moore
wrote:
> Hi Acee, Ketan, Peter, and Ran,
>
> Thank you for the discussion/comments regarding “Attribute Flags” vs.
> “Extended Flags”. We have updated the docu
Alana, RFC Editor, co-authors,
When I sent th approval mail below I thought that everything that needed
to be updated was captured.
Since then we have had a discussion on the abbreviation PSD MNA, I still
believe several thing around that abbreviation is unclear and would not
want the draft
Hi Acee, Ketan, Peter, and Ran,
Thank you for the discussion/comments regarding “Attribute Flags” vs. “Extended
Flags”. We have updated the document to reflect the following forms:
1) OSPFv2/v3 Prefix Extended Flags (sub-TLV name)
2) Prefix Extended Flags (field name)
3) OSPFv2/v3 Prefix Extende
Authors,
As we prepare this document for publication, may we update the title as follows
in order to expand "SRv6"? If not, please make another suggestion.
OLD:
BGP Colored Prefix Routing (CPR) for SRv6-Based Services
NEW:
BGP Colored Prefix Routing (CPR) for Services Based on Segment Routing
Hi Alice,
I have reviewed the changes and I am good with them. I approve this document.
Thank you for your efforts.
Cheers,
Ali
From: Alice Russo
Date: Wednesday, May 28, 2025 at 1:24 PM
To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
Cc: Patrice Brissette (pbrisset) , Luc
Andre Burdet (lburdet) , je_dr...@yahoo.
Ali,
We don't believe we've heard from you regarding this document's readiness for
publication as an RFC. Please let us know if any updates are needed or if you
approve the document. The files are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc97
Hi Mathias,
Thank you for the note regarding Simon’s out-of-office response! We will wait
for his approval when he returns. In the meantime, we have noted your approval
on the AUTH48 status page (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9783).
RFC Editor/mc
> On May 28, 2025, at 1:36 PM, Math
Hi Madison,
Looks good to me as well. I noticed that Simon Frost has an auto-response
noting he will be out until Monday June 2nd.
Thank you, everybody.
Sincerely,
-- Mathias Brossard
On 5/28/25, 12:22 PM, "Madison Church" wrote:
Hi Adrian,
We have marked your approval on the AUTH48 status
Hi Adrian,
We have marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page (see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9783).
Once we receive approvals from Mathias, Simon, and Hannes, we will move this
document forward in the publication process.
Thank you!
RFC Editor/mc
> On May 28, 2025, at 11:01 AM,
Lorenzo, Xiao, David,
I see it now waiting for your approval to be published. Please respond.
Bob
> On May 28, 2025, at 8:34 AM, Alanna Paloma
> wrote:
>
> Hi Erik,
>
> Thank you for your approval. We’ve noted it on the AUTH48 status page:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9762
>
> B
Hi Erik,
Thank you for your approval. We’ve noted it on the AUTH48 status page:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9762
Best regards,
RFC Editor/ap
> On May 27, 2025, at 8:54 PM, Erik Kline wrote:
>
> LGTM!
>
> On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 2:53 PM Alanna Paloma
> wrote:
> Hi Authors and Erik (
Hi Ketan,
On 28/05/2025 14:50, Ketan Talaulikar wrote:
Hi Acee,
Thanks.
That gets us to:
1) Sub-TLV name: OSPFv2/v3 Prefix Extended Flags Sub-TLV
2) The field name: Prefix Extended Flags
3) The IANA Registry name: OSPFv2/v3 Prefix Extended Flags Registry
It sounds good to me. Do any of my co-
Hi Acee，Ketan，
Many thanks！I agree，this change is good for me.
Best Regards，
Ran
发自我的zMail
Original
From:KetanTalaulikar
To:Acee Lindem;
Cc:陈然00080434;赵德涛10132546;kmo...@staff.rfc-editor.org;gongli...@chinamobile.com;Peter
Psenak;rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org;lsr-...@ietf.org;
Hi Authors, *Eliot,
Thomas and Hannes - Thank you for your replies! We have updated the document as
requested and noted Thomas’ approval (see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9783).
*Eliot - We have noted your approval as ISE.
The updated files have been posted here (please refresh):
ht
Hi Acee,
Thanks.
That gets us to:
1) Sub-TLV name: OSPFv2/v3 Prefix Extended Flags Sub-TLV
2) The field name: Prefix Extended Flags
3) The IANA Registry name: OSPFv2/v3 Prefix Extended Flags Registry
It sounds good to me. Do any of my co-authors have concerns or objections?
Thanks,
Ketan
On W
Hi Ketan,
I would simply change "attribute flags" to "extended flags" throughout to
reflect the title of the draft and the fact that these are prefix flags beyond
the current flags.
Thanks,
Acee
> On May 28, 2025, at 8:26 AM, Ketan Talaulikar wrote:
>
> Hi Acee,
>
> I would really appreci
Hi Ted,
Thank you for your reply. We have updated the document accordingly and noted
your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document
(http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9664).
We just need Stuart's final approval, and then we can proceed with publication
processing!
The updated fil
On 28 May 2025, at 10:26, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
> Your documents are useful, in good shape, and well written, so let’s get them
> out.
FWIW I've finished reviewing 9664 and it's ready with two very minor nits. I
expect to finish 9665 today. Stuart had a few nits for 9664, and I'll note m
Hi Acee,
I would really appreciate it if you could suggest better names. It would be
most welcome.
Like I said, this aspect escaped the attention of most of us but it is
still not too late to change/fix considering it is just a name change and
we don't have any implementations as yet (that I know
I'll relent since I'm not an co-author but I wouldn't have named the Sub-TLVs
as such. Agree the registry should match the Sub-TLVs.
Thanks,
Acee
> On May 28, 2025, at 8:02 AM, Ketan Talaulikar wrote:
>
> Hi Acee,
>
> We have the following in the document (as it stands currently in the auth4
Thanks for the update. I have two minor tweaks:
In 4.1, OLD:
so the term "Lease Update Request" is to specify behavior that is the
same for both types of DNS Update.
NEW:
so the term "Lease Update Request" is used to specify behavior that is the
same for both types of DNS Update.
In section 6,
Hi Acee,
We have the following in the document (as it stands currently in the auth48
stage):
1) Sub-TLV name: OSPFv2/v3 Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV
2) The field name: Prefix Attribute Flags
3) The IANA Registry name: OSPFv2/v3 Prefix Attribute Flags Registry
Could you please recommend your pr
We have already have:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/ospfv2-parameters.xhtml#extended-prefix-tlv-flags
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters/ospfv3-parameters.xhtml#ospfv3-parameters-4
which is merely the prefix options from RFC 5340.
I'm not sure why we are no
Hi Ran,
That is an ISIS RFC that you are referring to. Perhaps you missed Acee's
remarks to me about ISIS focus? ;-)
Personally, I would prefer consistency within OSPF first, and then perhaps
across IGPs (is also good to have).
Thanks,
Ketan
On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 3:17 PM wrote:
> Hi Acee,K
Approved.
Thank you all!
Eliot
On 28.05.2025 10:17, Thomas Fossati wrote:
Hi Madison,
On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 11:15:25AM +0100, Madison Church wrote:
Updated files have been posted here (please refresh):
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9783.txt
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc978
Hi Acee,Ketan,
I'd like to add a quick note on top of Ketan's point — RFC 7794 uses the same
term, "Prefix Attribute Flags sub-TLV". From a consistency perspective, that's
why I initially suggested that "Prefix Attribute Flags" would be appropriate.
However, if the goal is to match better with
Hi Acee,
This "attribute" has been there in this draft for quite some time and
through the WG and later phases. What the RFC editor has caught and fixed
are inconsistencies in the use of that term within the document - by
introducing "attributes" everywhere for consistency. Please check
https://ww
Hi Madison,
On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 11:15:25AM +0100, Madison Church wrote:
Updated files have been posted here (please refresh):
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9783.txt
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9783.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9783.html
https://www.rfc-
Stuart and Ted,
With all due respect for your $dayjob workload, I keep wondering why these 2
RFC-to-be take so long (approved in April 2024 and in AUTH48 since September
2024!) to get moving.
If the authors want to remove these two RFC-to-be from the publication queue,
i.e., do not publish the
All,
Where is this "attribute" coming from? Refer to RFC 7684 and RFC 83652. These
are "Extended Flags'". The registries should be:
OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Extended Flags
OSPFv3 Prefix TLV Extended Flags
Ketan - why aren't you watching this thread? Are you now only paying attention
32 matches
Mail list logo
