Hi Rakesh, Thank you for your review and reply. We have updated the document based on your replies below. For item 9, we are having trouble parsing the text:
> <RG> How about following? > > In one-way measurement mode defined in Section 2.4 of [RFC6374], the > querier can receive response messages with an IP/UDP > header “out-of-band” by properly setting the UDP Return Object (URO) TLV > in the > query message. We wonder if the following correctly conveys the intended meaning? In one-way measurement mode defined in Section 2.4 of [RFC6374], the querier can receive a response to an Out-of-band Response Requested message by properly setting the UDP Return Object (URO) TLV in the IP/UDP header. Please review the updated files here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.html AUTH48 diffs (highlight only the changes noted below): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) Comprehensive diffs: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Please review and let us know if additional updates are needed or if you approve the RFC for publication. Thank you, RFC Editor/sg > On Apr 16, 2025, at 8:01 PM, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) > <rgandhi=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > Hello Editor, > > Thank you for the great updates to the document. > > Note: I am adding new email IDs for Dan Voyer. Dan, please reply with your > preference on how you would like to update your information in the RFC-to-be. > > Please see replies inline with <RG>… > > > From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> > Date: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 at 7:00 PM > To: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <rgan...@cisco.com>, Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) > <cfils...@cisco.com>, daniel.vo...@bell.ca <daniel.vo...@bell.ca>, > stefano.sals...@uniroma2.it <stefano.sals...@uniroma2.it>, > mach.c...@huawei.com <mach.c...@huawei.com> > Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, mpls-...@ietf.org > <mpls-...@ietf.org>, mpls-cha...@ietf.org <mpls-cha...@ietf.org>, > tony...@tony.li<tony...@tony.li>, james.n.guich...@futurewei.com > <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com>, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9779 <draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sr-17> for your > review > > Authors, > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) > the following questions, which are also in the XML file. > > 1) <!-- [rfced] May we update the document title as shown below for > clarity? > > Original: > Performance Measurement for Segment Routing Networks with MPLS Data > Plane > > Perhaps: > Performance Measurement for Segment Routing Networks over the MPLS Data > Plane > > --> > > <RG> We could use following example as a guidance? > > RFC 8660 uses term: Segment Routing with the MPLS Data Plane > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8660 > > <RG> Performance Measurement for Segment Routing Networks with the MPLS Data > Plane > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in > the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> > > > <RG> Delay Measurement, Loss Measurement, Link Measurement, SR-MPLS Policy > Measurement > > > 3) <!-- [rfced] We have updated the text below for readability and to > clarify the relationship between SR-MPLS and its expansion. Please review > and let us know any objections. > > Original: > This document specifies the application of the MPLS loss and delay > measurement techniques, originally defined in RFC 6374, RFC 7876, and > RFC 9341 within Segment Routing (SR) networks that utilize the MPLS > data plane (SR-MPLS). > > Current: > This document specifies the application of the MPLS loss and delay > measurement techniques (originally defined in RFCs 6374, 7876, and 9341) > within Segment Routing (SR) networks that utilize the MPLS data plane, > also referred to as Segment Routing over MPLS (SR-MPLS). > > --> > > <RG> Ok. > > > 4) <!-- [rfced] We have updated the text below to demonstrate a 1:1 > relationship between abbreviation and expansion. Please review. > > Original: > > Segment Routing (SR), as specified in [RFC8402], leverages the source > routing paradigm and applies to both the Multiprotocol Label > Switching (SR-MPLS) and IPv6 (SRv6) data planes. > > Current: > > Segment Routing (SR), as specified in [RFC8402], leverages the source > routing paradigm and applies to both the Multiprotocol Label > Switching (MPLS) and Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) data planes. > These are referred to as Segment Routing over MPLS (SR-MPLS) and > Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6), respectively. > > --> > <RG> Ok. > > > 5) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, please consider whether the following > suggested update conveys the intended meaning. > > Original: > This document defines Return Path and Block Number TLV extensions for > [RFC6374], in Section 6, for delay and loss measurement in SR-MPLS > networks. > > Current: > This document extends [RFC6374] by defining Return Path and Block > Number TLVs (see Section 6) for delay and loss measurement in > SR-MPLS networks. > --> > <RG> Ok. > > 6) <!-- [rfced] Does "also apply" mean "can also be used"? > > Original: > These TLV extensions also apply to MPLS Label Switched > Paths (LSPs) [RFC3031]. > > Perhaps: > These TLVs can also be used in MPLS Label Switched > Paths (LSPs) [RFC3031]. > --> > <RG> Ok > > 7) <!-- [rfced] Seemingly, Success (0x1) is a Control Code. If this is > correct, may we udpate the text as follows? > > Original: > The responder that supports this TLV MUST return > Success in "Control Code" [RFC6374] if it is the intended destination > for the query. > > Perhaps: > The responder that supports this TLV MUST return > Control Code 0x1 (Success) [RFC6374] if it is the intended destination > for the query. > --> > > <RG> Ok > > > 8) <!-- [rfced] Could the text below be adjusted for clarity? Specifically, > what is being sent as "the destination address"? > > Original: > When the querier sets an IP address and a UDP port in the URO TLV, the > response message MUST be sent to that IP address as the destination address > and UDP port as the destination port. > > Perhaps: > When the querier sets an IP address and a UDP port in the URO TLV, the > response message MUST be sent to that IP address, with that IP address as > the destination address and the UDP port as the destination port. > --> > <RG> Ok > > > > 9) <!-- [rfced] May we update "out-of-band response messages" to > "Out-of-Band Response Requested messages..."? It is unclear whether the > text refers to the Response Requested messages or res ponses to Out-of-Band > Response Requested messages. > > Original: > In one-way measurement mode defined in Section 2.4 of [RFC6374], the > querier can receive "out-of-band" response messages with an IP/UDP > header by properly setting the UDP Return Object (URO) TLV in the > query message. > --> > <RG> How about following? > > In one-way measurement mode defined in Section 2.4 of [RFC6374], the > querier can receive response messages with an IP/UDP > header “out-of-band” by properly setting the UDP Return Object (URO) TLV > in the > query message. > > > 10) <!-- [rfced] How may we update the text below for clarity and > readability? > > Original: > In two-way measurement mode defined in Section 2.4 of [RFC6374], the > response messages SHOULD be sent back in-band on the same link or the > same end-to-end SR-MPLS path (same set of links and nodes) in the > reverse direction to the querier, in order to perform accurate two- > way delay measurement. > > Perhaps: > In the two-way measurement mode defined in Section 2.4 of [RFC6374], > the response messages SHOULD be sent back one of two ways: either > they are sent back in-band on the same link, or they are sent back > on the same end-to-end SR-MPLS path (i.e., the same set of links and > nodes) in the reverse direction to the querier. This is done in order > to perform accurate two-way delay measurement. > > --> > <RG> Ok. > > > > 11) <!-- [rfced] For readability, we suggest the update below. Please > review to ensure it does not impact the intended meaning. > > Original: > The querier can request in the query message for the responder > to send the response message back on a given return path using the > MPLS Label Stack sub-TLV in the Return Path TLV defined in this > document. > > Perhaps: > In the query message, the querier can request that the responder send > the response message back on a given return path using the MPLS Label > Stack Sub-TLV in the Return Path TLV defined in this document. > --> > <RG> Ok. > > > > 12) <!-- [rfced] Please review these similar sentences and let us know if > we may update them for readability. > > More specifically, what does "which" refer to in the examples below? Does > it refer to the ACH or the different values in parentheses? > > <RG> Value as in the suggested text. > > In addition, we were unable to find "Combined DM+LM" in RFC 6374 as seen in > the third example. Should this be updated to "combined LM/DM message" as > used in RFC 6374? > > <RG> Yes. > > > Original: > As defined in [RFC6374], MPLS Delay Measurement (DM) query and > response messages use the Associated Channel Header (ACH) (value > 0x000C for delay measurement) [RFC6374], which identifies the message > type and the message payload as defined in Section 3.2 [RFC6374] > following the ACH. > > As defined in [RFC6374], MPLS LM query and response messages use the > Associated Channel Header (ACH) (value 0x000A for direct loss > measurement or value 0x000B for inferred loss measurement), which > identifies the message type and the message payload defined in > Section 3.1 [RFC6374] following the ACH. > > As defined in [RFC6374], Combined DM+LM query and response messages > use the Associated Channel Header (ACH) (value 0x000D for direct loss > and delay measurement or value 0x000E for inferred loss and delay > measurement), which identifies the message type and the message > payload defined in Section 3.3 [RFC6374] following the ACH. > > Perhaps: > As defined in [RFC6374], MPLS Delay Measurement (DM) query and response > messages use the Associated Channel Header (ACH) (with the value 0x000C > for delay measurement). This value identifies the message type and the > message payload that follow the ACH, as defined in Section 3.2 of > [RFC6374]. > > As defined in [RFC6374], MPLS LM query and response messages use the ACH > (with the value 0x000A for direct loss measurement or the value 0x000B > for inferred loss measurement). This value identifies the message type > and the message payload that follow the ACH, as defined in Section 3.1 > of [RFC6374]. > > As defined in [RFC6374], combined DM+LM query and response messages use > the ACH (with the value 0x000D for direct loss and delay measurement or > the value 0x000E for inferred loss and delay measurement). This value > identifies the message type and the message payload that follows the > ACH, as defined in Section 3.3 of [RFC6374]. > > --> > <RG> Ok. Except DM+LM to be changed to LM/DM as suggested. > > > 13) <!-- [rfced] In the instances below, we have adjusted "for accounting > received traffic". Please review to ensure these changes do not alter your > meaning. > > Original: > The Path Segment Identifier (PSID) [RFC9545] MUST be carried in the > received data packet for the traffic flow under measurement for > accounting received traffic on the egress node of the SR-MPLS Policy. > > Different values of PSID can be used per Candidate-Path for accounting > received traffic to measure packet loss at the Candidate- Path level. > > Current: > The Path Segment Identifier (PSID) [RFC9545] MUST be carried in the > received data packet for the traffic flow under measurement, in order to > account for received traffic on the egress node of the SR-MPLS Policy. > > Different values of the PSID can be used per Candidate-Path to account > for received traffic and to measure packet loss at the Candidate-Path > level. > --> > <RG> Ok > > > 14) <!-- [rfced] In the text below, does "while" mean "at the same time", > or does it represent a contrast (like "whereas" or "on the other hand")? > > Original: > The LM query and response messages defined in [RFC6374] are used to > measure packet loss for the block of data packets transmitted with > the previous marking while data packets carry alternate marking. > > Perhaps: > The LM query and response messages defined in [RFC6374] are used to > measure packet loss for the block of data packets transmitted with the > previous marking, whereas data packets carry alternate marking. > --> > <RG> Ok > > > > 15) <!-- [rfced] FYI - The quoted text below appears differently in RFC > 9341. We have updated to match RFC 9341. > > Original: > "The assumption of the block number mechanism is that the measurement > nodes are time synchronized" as specified in Section 4.3 of [RFC9341] > is not necessary, as the block number on the responder can be > synchronized based on the received LM query messages. > > Current: > Section 4.3 of [RFC9341] specifies: "The assumption of this BN > mechanism is that the measurement nodes are time synchronized." However, > this is not necessary, as the block number on the responder can be > synchronized based on the received LM query messages. > > --> > > <RG> Ok > > > 16) <!-- [rfced] Is "LSE" singular or plural in the text below? > > Original: > The MPLS Label Stack contains a list of 32-bit LSE that includes a > 20-bit label value, 8-bit TTL value, 3-bit TC value, and 1-bit EOS > (S) field. > > Perhaps (LSE is plural): > The MPLS Label Stack contains a list of 32-bit LSEs that each include a > 20-bit label value, an 8-bit TTL value, a 3-bit TC value, and a 1-bit > EOS (S) field. > > --> > <RG> Ok > > > > 17) <!-- [rfced] We have removed "TLV" from the Descriptions to align with > the IANA registries <https://www.iana.org/assignments/g-ach-parameters>. > Please let us know any corrections. > > Original: > | TBA1 | Return Path TLV | This document | > | TBA2 | Block Number TLV | This document | > > Current: > | 5 | Return Path | RFC 9779 | > | 6 | Block Number | RFC 9779 | > --> > <RG> Ok > > > > 18) <!-- [rfced] Should the registry name be plural? Note that we will ask > IANA to update their registry if this change is accepted. > > Current: Return Path Sub-TLV Type > Perhaps: Return Path Sub-TLV Types > --> > <RG> Yes > > > 19) <!-- [rfced] Much of this text duplicates what appears in the table. > Perhaps the text should just indicate that the code points are assigned as > defined in Table 2? > > Section 12: > All code points in the range 0 through 175 in this registry > shall be allocated according to the "IETF Review" procedure as > specified in [RFC8126]. Code points in the range 176 through 239 in > this registry shall be allocated according to the "First Come, First > Served" procedure as specified in [RFC8126]. Remaining code points > are allocated according to Table 2: > > Table 2: > | Value | Description | Reference | > +===========+=========================+===============+ > | 1 - 175 | IETF Review | This document | > | 176 - 239 | First Come First Served | This document | > | 240 - 251 | Experimental Use | This document | > | 252 - 254 | Private Use | This document | > --> > <RG> Agree to change to: > > The code points are allocated according to Table 2: > > > 20) <!-- [rfced] Would it make sense to refer to the MPLS Review Team > (assuming that is correct), as we are unsure what MPLS-RT refers to and we > are unable to find information about it. > > Original: > Thanks to Huaimo Chen, Yimin Shen, and Xufeng Liu for MPLS-RT expert > review, ... > --> > <RG> Perhaps > > Thanks to Huaimo Chen, Yimin Shen, and Xufeng Liu for MPLS expert > review, ... > > > 21) <!-- [rfced] [IEEE802.1AX] references the 2008 version of this IEEE > Standard. May we update this reference to use the current standard from > 2020 as seen in the following URL: > <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9105034>? > > --> > <RG> Yes > > > 22) <!-- [rfced] We removed the quotes around Control Code throughout to > align with use in RFC 6374. We have also removed the quotes and > capitalized "in-band response requested" and "out-of-band response > requested" to match what appears in RFC 6374 and the IANA registry. Please > review and let us know if corrections are needed. > --> > <RG> Ok > > 23) <!-- [rfced] Please review the following changes and questions > regarding the terms used in this document: > > a) RFC 8402 uses "node-SID" and "Anycast-SID" rather than "node SID" and > "Anycast SID". May we update these to match the usage from RFC 8402? > > <RG> Yes. > > b) We note different capitalization of label stack vs. Label Stack. We > believe the lowercase "label stack" is used in general text, but "Label > Stack" is capitalized when it refers to the the TLV. Please confirm that > MPLS Label Stack is capitalized correctly in the following: > > Original: > The MPLS Label Stack contains a list of 32-bit LSE that includes a > 20-bit label value, 8-bit TTL value, 3-bit TC value, and 1-bit EOS > (S) field. An MPLS Label Stack Sub-TLV may carry a stack of labels > or a Binding SID label [RFC8402] of the Return SR-MPLS Policy. > --> > <RG> Perhaps > > The MPLS label stack contains a list of 32-bit LSE that includes a > 20-bit label value, 8-bit TTL value, 3-bit TC value, and 1-bit EOS > (S) field. An MPLS Label Stack Sub-TLV may carry a stack of labels > or a Binding SID label [RFC8402] of the Return SR-MPLS Policy. > > > > 24) <!-- [rfced] Please review the following questions and changes > regarding the abbreviations used in this document. > > a) Per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"), abbreviations should be > expanded upon first use. Is "EOS" in the text below an abbreviation? If so, > how may it be expanded? > > 1-bit EOS (S) field > > <RG> Perhaps: > > 1-bit End of Stack (S) field > > b) FYI - We have expanded the abbreviation below. Please review to > ensure correctness. > > Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) > > --> > <RG> Ok > > 25) <!-- [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. > > --> > > <RG> Believe the document is ok. > > Thanks, > > Rakesh > > > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor > > > > On Apr 16, 2025, at 3:52 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > Updated 2025/04/16 > > 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 > > * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (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). > > * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, 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, > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org 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/rfc9779.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.txt > > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff of the XML: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-xmldiff1.html > > > Tracking progress > ----------------- > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9779 > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > > -------------------------------------- > RFC9779 (draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sr-17) > > Title : Performance Measurement for Segment Routing Networks with > MPLS Data Plane > Author(s) : R. Gandhi, C. Filsfils, D. Voyer, S. Salsano, M. Chen > WG Chair(s) : Nicolai Leymann, Tarek Saad, Tony Li > > Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter Van de Velde > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
