Hi Dan, Thank you for your reply. We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 page as well.
RFC Editor/sg > On May 2, 2025, at 2:54 PM, Dan Voyer (davoyer) <davo...@cisco.com> wrote: > > Thanks for the work, > > Approved ! > > Best Regards, > Dan > > From: Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > Date: Friday, May 2, 2025 at 4:31 PM > To: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <rgan...@cisco.com> > Cc: Stefano Salsano <stefano.sals...@uniroma2.it>, RFC Editor > <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) > <cfils...@cisco.com>, mach.c...@huawei.com <mach.c...@huawei.com>, > danvoyerw...@gmail.com <danvoyerw...@gmail.com>, Dan Voyer (davoyer) > <davo...@cisco.com>, 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: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9779 <draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sr-17> for > your review > > Hi Rakesh, > > Thank you for your reviews! We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 page > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9779>. > > We will wait to hear from your coauthors as well before continuing with the > publication process. > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/sg > > > > On May 2, 2025, at 11:40 AM, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <rgan...@cisco.com> > > wrote: > > > > Thank you, Sandy, for the excellent work. > > > > Approved. > > > > Regards, > > Rakesh > > > > > > > > From: Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > > Date: Friday, May 2, 2025 at 1:46 PM > > To: Stefano Salsano <stefano.sals...@uniroma2.it> > > Cc: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <rgan...@cisco.com>, RFC Editor > > <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) > > <cfils...@cisco.com>, mach.c...@huawei.com <mach.c...@huawei.com>, > > danvoyerw...@gmail.com <danvoyerw...@gmail.com>, Dan Voyer (davoyer) > > <davo...@cisco.com>, 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: [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9779 <draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sr-17> > > for your review > > > > Hi Rakesh and Stefano, Jim* (as AD), > > > > *Jim, please review the change in Section 4.2.1 and let us know if you > > approve. The changes are most easily viewed in one these diff files: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-lastdiff.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-lastrfcdiff.html (side by > > side) > > > > > > Rakesh and Stefano, thank you for your help to clarify the text! We have > > updated the document as described below. The current files are available > > at the following URLs: > > 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 > > > > Diffs of the last two rounds of updates: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-lastdiff.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-lastrfcdiff.html (side by > > side) > > > > AUTH48 diffs: > > 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 any additional updates are needed or if > > you approve the RFC for publication. > > > > Thank you, > > RFC Editor/sg > > > > > > > > > On Apr 29, 2025, at 12:58 PM, Stefano Salsano > > > <stefano.sals...@uniroma2.it> wrote: > > > > > > Il 28/04/2025 21:34, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) ha scritto: > > >> Thanks, Sandy, for the updates. > > >> Regarding your question below, I think it may be easier to read if we > > >> split it into two sentences. > > >> Old text in the draft: > > >> 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. > > >> New text: > > >> In one-way measurement mode, as defined in Section 2.4 of [RFC6374], the > > >> querier can properly set the UDP Return Object (URO) TLV in the query > > >> message. This allows the response message, containing an IP/UDP header > > >> for that query message, to be received out-of-band by the querier. > > > > > > Dear Sandy and Rakesh, > > > > > > I agree with the text proposed by Rakesh, I only propose to improve and > > > clarify the second sentence. We can change it from passive to active mode > > > and we can further clarify that the IP/UDP header encapsulates the > > > message rather than being contained into the message: > > > > > > In one-way measurement mode, as defined in Section 2.4 of [RFC > > > 6374], the querier can set the UDP Return Object (URO) TLV in the query > > > message. This enables the querier to receive the out-of-band response > > > message encapsulated in an IP/UDP header sent to the IP address and > > > UDP port specified in the URO TLV. > > > > > > ciao > > > Stefano > > > > > > > > >> Does that work? > > >> Thanks, > > >> Rakesh > > >> *From: *Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > > >> *Date: *Monday, April 28, 2025 at 1:43 PM > > >> *To: *Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <rgan...@cisco.com> > > >> *Cc: *RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, 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>, danvoyerw...@gmail.com <danvoyerw...@gmail.com>, > > >> Dan Voyer (davoyer) <davo...@cisco.com>, mpls-...@ietf.org <mpls- > > >> a...@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 > > >> Greetings, > > >> Rakesh, thank you for your reply. We have updated the document as noted > > >> below. Looking at the change in the diff, we would appreciate you or > > >> one of your coauthors confirming that this update is as intended. > > >> Specifically, please confirm whether: > > >> … response messages with an IP/UDP header “out-of-band” … > > >> is the same as or was intended to be > > >> … a response to an Out-of-band Response Requested message … > > >> The current files are available her: > > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.xml <https://urldefense.com/ > > >> v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.xml__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > > >> aXfERMuEFXQow$> > > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.txt <https://urldefense.com/ > > >> v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.txt__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > > >> aXfERMIQ6ck5s$> > > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.pdf <https://urldefense.com/ > > >> v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.pdf__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > > >> aXfERM3kGkC9Y$> > > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.html <https://urldefense.com/ > > >> v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > > >> aXfERMgOwlxTo$> > > >> Diffs highlighting the most recent updates: > > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-lastdiff.html <https:// > > >> urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-lastdiff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > > >> aXfERMjY0rDUM$> > > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-lastrfcdiff.html <https:// > > >> urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779- > > >> lastrfcdiff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > > >> aXfERMxz9y4bU$> (side by side) > > >> AUTH48 diffs: > > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-auth48diff.html <https:// > > >> urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779- > > >> auth48diff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > > >> aXfERM8To5wjU$> > > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-auth48rfcdiff.html <https:// > > >> urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779- > > >> auth48rfcdiff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > > >> aXfERMA6pJ9Pw$> (side by side) > > >> Comprehensive diffs: > > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-diff.html <https:// > > >> urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-diff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > > >> aXfERMX4LfIks$> > > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-rfcdiff.html <https:// > > >> urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-rfcdiff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > > >> aXfERMLrG-ZUg$> (side by side) > > >> Thank you, > > >> RFC Editor/sg > > >>> On Apr 21, 2025, at 3:43 PM, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) > > >>> <rgan...@cisco.com> wrote: > > >>> Hello Sandy, > > >>> Thanks for the great updates. They all look good to me. > > >>> Please see inline with one comment <RG>.. > > >>> From: Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > > >>> Date: Monday, April 21, 2025 at 5:19 PM > > >>> To: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <rgan...@cisco.com> > > >>> Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, 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>, danvoyerw...@gmail.com<danvoyerw...@gmail.com>, > > >>> Dan Voyer (davoyer) <davo...@cisco.com>, mpls-...@ietf.org <mpls- > > >> a...@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 > > >>> 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. > > >>> <RG> Looks good. > > >>> Thanks, > > >>> Rakesh > > >>> Please review the updated files here: > > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.xml > > >>> <https://urldefense.com/ > > >> v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.xml__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > > >> aXfERMuEFXQow$> > > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.txt > > >>> <https://urldefense.com/ > > >> v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.txt__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > > >> aXfERMIQ6ck5s$> > > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.pdf > > >>> <https://urldefense.com/ > > >> v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.pdf__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > > >> aXfERM3kGkC9Y$> > > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.html > > >>> <https://urldefense.com/ > > >> v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > > >> aXfERMgOwlxTo$> > > >>> AUTH48 diffs (highlight only the changes noted below): > > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-auth48diff.html <https:// > > >> urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779- > > >> auth48diff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > > >> aXfERM8To5wjU$> > > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-auth48rfcdiff.html > > >>> <https:// > > >> urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779- > > >> auth48rfcdiff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > > >> aXfERMA6pJ9Pw$> (side by side) > > >>> Comprehensive diffs: > > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-diff.html <https:// > > >> urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779- > > >> diff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > > >> aXfERMX4LfIks$> > > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-rfcdiff.html <https:// > > >> urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779- > > >> rfcdiff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > > >> aXfERMLrG-ZUg$> (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 > > >>> > > <https://urldefense.com/ > > >> v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8660__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > > >> aXfERMKktbgAA$> > > >>> > > <RG> Performance Measurement for Segment Routing Networks with the > > >>> > > MPLS Data Plane > > >>> > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that > > >>> > > > appear in > > >>> > the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search > > >>> > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:// > > >> www.rfc-editor.org/search__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > > >> aXfERMN9Y_re0$>. --> > > >>> > > > <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 <https:// > > >> urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/assignments/g-ach- > > >> parameters__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > > >> aXfERMke3dELU$>>. > > >>> > 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<https://urldefense.com/v3/ > > >>> > > > > > >> __https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9105034__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > > >> aXfERMBPhYNs0$>>? > > >>> > > --> > > >>> > <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 > > >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/ > > >> part2/*inclusive_language__;Iw!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > > >> aXfERMlemNz60$>> > > >>> > and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature > > > >>> > typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for > > >>> > readers. > > >>> > > Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this > > >>> > > should > still be reviewed as a best practice. > > --> > > >>> > > <RG> Believe the document is ok. > > >>> > > Thanks, > > >>> > > Rakesh > > >>> > > > > Thank you. > > >>> > > RFC Editor > > >>> > > > > On Apr 16, 2025, at 3:52 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > >>> > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > >>> > > Updated 2025/04/16 > > >>> > > RFC Author(s): > > >>> > -------------- > > >>> > > Instructions for Completing AUTH48 > > >>> > > Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed > > >>> > > and > approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an > > >>> > > RFC. > If an author is no longer available, there are several > > >>> > > remedies > available as listed in the FAQ > > >>> > > (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/ > > >>> > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:// > > >> www.rfc-editor.org/faq/__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > > >> aXfERMV3Xtv9o$>). > > >>> > > 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) <https://urldefense.com/v3/ > > >> __https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > > >> aXfERMbfuxA7Y$>. > > >>> > > * Semantic markup > > >>> > > Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements > > >>> > > of > content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that > > >>> > > <sourcecode> > and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary<https://urldefense.com/v3/ > > >>> > > > > >> __https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > > >> aXfERMsWB6zMw$>>. > > >>> > > * 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 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:// > > >> mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/ > > >> yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > > >> aXfERM_aSn8mc$> > > >>> > > * The archive itself: > > >>> > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ > > >>> > <https:// > > >> urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ > > >> auth48archive/__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > > >> aXfERM7UtK5pM$> > > >>> > > * 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://urldefense.com/ > > >> v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.xml__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > > >> aXfERMuEFXQow$> > > >>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.html > > >>> > <https://urldefense.com/ > > >> v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > > >> aXfERMgOwlxTo$> > > >>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.pdf > > >>> > <https://urldefense.com/ > > >> v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.pdf__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > > >> aXfERM3kGkC9Y$> > > >>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.txt > > >>> > <https://urldefense.com/ > > >> v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.txt__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > > >> aXfERMIQ6ck5s$> > > >>> > > Diff file of the text: > > >>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-diff.html <https:// > > >> urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779- > > >> diff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > > >> aXfERMX4LfIks$> > > >>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-rfcdiff.html <https:// > > >> urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779- > > >> rfcdiff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > > >> aXfERMLrG-ZUg$> (side by side) > > >>> > > Diff of the XML: > > > >>> > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-xmldiff1.html <https:// > > >> urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779- > > >> xmldiff1.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > > >> aXfERMYnmj910$> > > >>> > > > Tracking progress > > >>> > ----------------- > > >>> > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > > >>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9779 > > >>> > <https://urldefense.com/v3/ > > >> __https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9779__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > > >> aXfERMOhIB-ns$> > > >>> > > 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 > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > ******************************************************************* > > > Prof. Stefano Salsano > > > Dipartimento Ingegneria Elettronica > > > Universita' di Roma Tor Vergata > > > Viale Politecnico, 1 - 00133 Roma - ITALY > > > > > > http://netgroup.uniroma2.it/Stefano_Salsano/ > > > > > > E-mail : stefano.sals...@uniroma2.it > > > Office : (Tel.) +39 06 72597770 (Fax.) +39 06 72597435 > > > ******************************************************************* > > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
