Hi Stefano, Thank you for your reply. We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 page <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9779>.
Thank you, RFC Editor/sg > On May 2, 2025, at 8:49 PM, Stefano Salsano <stefano.sals...@uniroma2.it> > wrote: > > Il 02/05/2025 22:31, Sandy Ginoza ha scritto: >> Hi Rakesh, >> Thank you for your reviews! We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 page >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9779__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv10Vvc4cF$ >> >. >> We will wait to hear from your coauthors as well before continuing with the >> publication process. > > Hi Sandy, > > thank you for your work! > > Approved. > > Stefano >> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-lastdiff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv1wkcvZy3$ >>> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-lastrfcdiff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv1-R1oq07$ >>> (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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.xml__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv17tgn4MR$ >>> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.txt__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv18l91UNz$ >>> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.pdf__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv13HM80Mg$ >>> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv17rIb9v7$ >>> >>> Diffs of the last two rounds of updates: >>> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-lastdiff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv1wkcvZy3$ >>> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-lastrfcdiff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv1-R1oq07$ >>> (side by side) >>> >>> AUTH48 diffs: >>> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-auth48diff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv16WYplRl$ >>> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-auth48rfcdiff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv1xfkiCXU$ >>> (side by side) >>> >>> Comprehensive diffs: >>> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-diff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv164h1asG$ >>> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-rfcdiff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv1186Fgii$ >>> (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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.xml__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv17tgn4MR$ >>>>> <https://urldefense.com/ >>>>> v3/__https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.xml__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG-__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv10Vbd1lg$ >>>>> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- >>>>> aXfERMuEFXQow$> >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.txt__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv18l91UNz$ >>>>> <https://urldefense.com/ >>>>> v3/__https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.txt__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG-__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv1xUPzdok$ >>>>> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- >>>>> aXfERMIQ6ck5s$> >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.pdf__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv13HM80Mg$ >>>>> <https://urldefense.com/ >>>>> v3/__https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.pdf__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG-__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv1zg21jNC$ >>>>> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- >>>>> aXfERM3kGkC9Y$> >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv17rIb9v7$ >>>>> <https://urldefense.com/ >>>>> v3/__https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG-__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv10ajpfpx$ >>>>> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- >>>>> aXfERMgOwlxTo$> >>>>> Diffs highlighting the most recent updates: >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-lastdiff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv1wkcvZy3$ >>>>> <https:// >>>>> urldefense.com/v3/__https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-lastdiff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG-__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv1-vgKzpa$ >>>>> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- >>>>> aXfERMjY0rDUM$> >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-lastrfcdiff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv1-R1oq07$ >>>>> <https:// >>>>> urldefense.com/v3/__https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv17q3jAEd$ >>>>> lastrfcdiff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- >>>>> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- >>>>> aXfERMxz9y4bU$> (side by side) >>>>> AUTH48 diffs: >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-auth48diff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv16WYplRl$ >>>>> <https:// >>>>> urldefense.com/v3/__https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv17q3jAEd$ >>>>> auth48diff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- >>>>> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- >>>>> aXfERM8To5wjU$> >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-auth48rfcdiff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv1xfkiCXU$ >>>>> <https:// >>>>> urldefense.com/v3/__https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv17q3jAEd$ >>>>> auth48rfcdiff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- >>>>> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- >>>>> aXfERMA6pJ9Pw$> (side by side) >>>>> Comprehensive diffs: >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-diff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv164h1asG$ >>>>> <https:// >>>>> urldefense.com/v3/__https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-diff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG-__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv1_Q0X8rP$ >>>>> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- >>>>> aXfERMX4LfIks$> >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-rfcdiff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv1186Fgii$ >>>>> <https:// >>>>> urldefense.com/v3/__https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-rfcdiff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG-__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv1_O-GnuE$ >>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.xml__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv17tgn4MR$ >>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/ >>>>> v3/__https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.xml__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG-__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv10Vbd1lg$ >>>>> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- >>>>> aXfERMuEFXQow$> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.txt__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv18l91UNz$ >>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/ >>>>> v3/__https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.txt__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG-__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv1xUPzdok$ >>>>> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- >>>>> aXfERMIQ6ck5s$> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.pdf__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv13HM80Mg$ >>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/ >>>>> v3/__https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.pdf__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG-__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv1zg21jNC$ >>>>> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- >>>>> aXfERM3kGkC9Y$> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv17rIb9v7$ >>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/ >>>>> v3/__https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG-__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv10ajpfpx$ >>>>> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- >>>>> aXfERMgOwlxTo$> >>>>>> AUTH48 diffs (highlight only the changes noted below): >>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-auth48diff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv16WYplRl$ >>>>>> <https:// >>>>> urldefense.com/v3/__https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv17q3jAEd$ >>>>> auth48diff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- >>>>> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- >>>>> aXfERM8To5wjU$> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-auth48rfcdiff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv1xfkiCXU$ >>>>>> <https:// >>>>> urldefense.com/v3/__https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv17q3jAEd$ >>>>> auth48rfcdiff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- >>>>> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- >>>>> aXfERMA6pJ9Pw$> (side by side) >>>>>> Comprehensive diffs: >>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-diff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv164h1asG$ >>>>>> <https:// >>>>> urldefense.com/v3/__https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv17q3jAEd$ >>>>> diff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- >>>>> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- >>>>> aXfERMX4LfIks$> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-rfcdiff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv1186Fgii$ >>>>>> <https:// >>>>> urldefense.com/v3/__https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv17q3jAEd$ >>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8660__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv1y9LTyY0$ >>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/ >>>>> v3/__https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8660__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG-__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv18Al8PE2$ >>>>> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- >>>>> aXfERMKktbgAA$> >>>>>>>> <RG> Performance Measurement for Segment Routing Networks with the >>>>>>>> MPLS Data Plane >>>>>>>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>> the title) for use on >>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/search__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv18JaW9ok$ >>>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:// >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.rfc-editor.org/search__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG-__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv16lh4RY1$ >>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/assignments/g-ach-parameters__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv1zsXAUn-$ >>>>>>>>>> <https:// >>>>> urldefense.com/v3/__https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/assignments/g-ach-__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv1_PM8ZCJ$ >>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9105034__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv1475KWZ_$ >>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/ >>>>> __https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9105034__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG-__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv1xu2lkth$ >>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/*inclusive_language__;Iw!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv1_jqp8hY$ >>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/ >>>>> part2/*inclusive_language__;Iw!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- >>>>> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- >>>>> aXfERMlemNz60$>> >>>>>>> and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature > >>>>>>> typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. >>>>>>>> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this >>>>>>>> should > still be reviewed as a best practice. > > --> >>>>>>>> <RG> Believe the document is ok. >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Rakesh >>>>>>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>>>> RFC Editor >>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 2025, at 3:52 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: >>>>>>>> *****IMPORTANT***** >>>>>>>> Updated 2025/04/16 >>>>>>>> RFC Author(s): >>>>>>> -------------- >>>>>>>> Instructions for Completing AUTH48 >>>>>>>> Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and > >>>>>>>> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. > >>>>>>>> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies > >>>>>>>> available as listed in the FAQ >>>>>>>> (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv1_TmOE29$ >>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:// >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG-__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv12aM0s5e$ >>>>> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- >>>>> aXfERMV3Xtv9o$>). >>>>>>>> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties > >>>>>>>> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing > >>>>>>>> your approval. >>>>>>>> Planning your review > --------------------- >>>>>>>> Please review the following aspects of your document: >>>>>>>> * RFC Editor questions >>>>>>>> Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor > >>>>>>>> that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as > >>>>>>>> follows: >>>>>>>> <!-- [rfced] ... --> >>>>>>>> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. >>>>>>>> * Changes submitted by coauthors > > Please ensure that you review >>>>>>>> any changes submitted by your > coauthors. We assume that if you >>>>>>>> do not speak up that you > agree to changes submitted by your >>>>>>>> coauthors. >>>>>>>> * Content > > Please review the full content of the document, as >>>>>>>> this cannot > change once the RFC is published. Please pay >>>>>>>> particular attention to: >>>>>>> - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) >>>>>>> - contact information >>>>>>> - references >>>>>>>> * Copyright notices and legends >>>>>>>> Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in >>>>>>> RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions > (TLP – >>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv1_TuBTdu$ >>>>>>> ) <https://urldefense.com/v3/ >>>>> __https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG-__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv1-Kh9XzB$ >>>>> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- >>>>> aXfERMbfuxA7Y$>. >>>>>>>> * Semantic markup >>>>>>>> Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of >>>>>>>> > content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that >>>>>>>> <sourcecode> > and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv1-TFBW65$ >>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/ >>>>> __https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG-__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv12TYuR_T$ >>>>> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- >>>>> aXfERMsWB6zMw$>>. >>>>>>>> * Formatted output >>>>>>>> Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the > >>>>>>>> formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is > >>>>>>>> reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting > >>>>>>>> limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. >>>>>>>>> Submitting changes >>>>>>> ------------------ >>>>>>>> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all >>>>>>>> > the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The >>>>>>>> parties > include: >>>>>>>> * your coauthors >>>>>>> > * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team) >>>>>>>> * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., > >>>>>>>> IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the > >>>>>>>> responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). >>>>>>> > * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival >>>>>>> mailing list > to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an >>>>>>> active discussion > list: >>>>>>> > * More info: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv160DcooX$ >>>>> yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:// >>>>> mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/ >>>>> yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- >>>>> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- >>>>> aXfERM_aSn8mc$> >>>>>>> > * The archive itself: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv16zFx0pM$ >>>>>>> <https:// >>>>> urldefense.com/v3/__https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv1-0Bzt1d$ >>>>> auth48archive/__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- >>>>> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- >>>>> aXfERM7UtK5pM$> >>>>>>>> * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt >>>>>>>> out > of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a >>>>>>>> sensitive matter). >>>>>>> If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you >>>>>>> > have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, > >>>>>>> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list >>>>>>> and > its addition will be noted at the top of the message. > > >>>>>>> You may submit your changes in one of two ways: >>>>>>>> An update to the provided XML file >>>>>>> — OR — >>>>>>> An explicit list of changes in this format >>>>>>>> Section # (or indicate Global) >>>>>>>> OLD: >>>>>>> old text >>>>>>>> NEW: >>>>>>> new text >>>>>>>> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit >>>>>>>> > list of changes, as either form is sufficient. >>>>>>>> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that >>>>>>>> seem >>>>>>> beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of >>>>>>> text, > and technical changes. Information about stream managers can >>>>>>> be found in > the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from >>>>>>> a stream manager. >>>>>>>>> Approving for publication >>>>>>> -------------------------- >>>>>>>> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating >>>>>>> that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, >>>>>>> as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. >>>>>>>>> Files > ----- >>>>>>>> The files are available here: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.xml__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv17tgn4MR$ >>>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/ >>>>> v3/__https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.xml__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG-__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv10Vbd1lg$ >>>>> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- >>>>> aXfERMuEFXQow$> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv17rIb9v7$ >>>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/ >>>>> v3/__https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG-__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv10ajpfpx$ >>>>> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- >>>>> aXfERMgOwlxTo$> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.pdf__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv13HM80Mg$ >>>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/ >>>>> v3/__https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.pdf__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG-__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv1zg21jNC$ >>>>> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- >>>>> aXfERM3kGkC9Y$> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.txt__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv18l91UNz$ >>>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/ >>>>> v3/__https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.txt__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG-__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv1xUPzdok$ >>>>> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- >>>>> aXfERMIQ6ck5s$> >>>>>>>> Diff file of the text: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-diff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv164h1asG$ >>>>>>> <https:// >>>>> urldefense.com/v3/__https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv17q3jAEd$ >>>>> diff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- >>>>> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- >>>>> aXfERMX4LfIks$> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-rfcdiff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv1186Fgii$ >>>>>>> <https:// >>>>> urldefense.com/v3/__https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv17q3jAEd$ >>>>> rfcdiff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- >>>>> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- >>>>> aXfERMLrG-ZUg$> (side by side) >>>>>>>> Diff of the XML: > >>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-xmldiff1.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv11LtBxgY$ >>>>>>>> <https:// >>>>> urldefense.com/v3/__https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv17q3jAEd$ >>>>> xmldiff1.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- >>>>> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- >>>>> aXfERMYnmj910$> >>>>>>>>> Tracking progress >>>>>>> ----------------- >>>>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9779__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv10Vvc4cF$ >>>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/ >>>>> __https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9779__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG-__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EzDrCITmjHFNd_BnJMv-kO8h7MZM-W2PT5WygvBbNMKjTel_9h8mncIqjmYm_M-7mH4bzB3yq13VNdQ8nFaanTDv13ax6qCQ$ >>>>> 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 >>>> ******************************************************************* >>> > > > -- > ******************************************************************* > 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
