Authors, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> 2) <!-- [rfced] RFC 8277 doesn't appear to use the term "BGP Labeled Unicast" or "BGP-LU." For clarity, may we add text to draw a more clear connection, for example, "the mechanism described in RFC 8277 is referred to BGP-LU although that term does not actually appear in the document." Original: The inter-domain path can be established using either Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) or IP data plane. In MPLS-based networks, the usual inter-domain approach is to establish an end-to-end Label- Switched Path (LSP) based on the BGP Labeled Unicast (BGP-LU) mechanism as defined in [RFC8277]. --> 3) <!-- [rfced] Would it be correct to change "and" to "whereby"? Original: One way to achieve this is by splitting the base SRv6 locator of the node into N sub-locators, and these sub-locators are Colored Prefixes associated with different intents. --> 4) <!-- [rfced] RFC 2545 does not contain the term "IPv6 unicast Address Family/Subsequent Address Family (AFI/SAFI = 2/1)", "AFI", or "SAFI". We see one instance of "Address Family" and a couple instances of "unicast address". Please consider how the text and citation can be clarified. In a multi-AS IPv6 network, the IPv6 unicast Address Family/ Subsequent Address Family (AFI/SAFI = 2/1) [RFC2545] is used for the advertisement of the Colored Prefix routes. --> 5) <!-- [rfced] In the bulleted list, is it correct for SRv6 to be listed twice? Also, adding conjunctions may improve clarity regarding how the mechanisms are related. Is the path built with a combination of the bulleted items or only one of the individual items? Original: The intra-domain color-aware path could be built with any of the following mechanisms: * SRv6 or SR-MPLS Policy * SRv6 or SR-MPLS Flex-Algo * RSVP-TE Perhaps (a combination): The intra-domain color-aware path could be built with any of the following mechanisms: * SRv6 or SR-MPLS Policy, and * SRv6 or SR-MPLS Flex-Algo, and * RSVP-TE. Perhaps (a single item): The intra-domain color-aware path could be built with any of the following mechanisms: * SRv6, * SR-MPLS Policy, * SR-MPLS Flex-Algo, or * RSVP-TE. --> 6) <!-- [rfced] "which makes them belonging" is unclear. We have updated the text as shown below. Original: The CPR mechanism can be used in network scenarios where multiple inter-connected ASes belong to the same operator, or there is an operational trust model between the ASes of different operators which makes them belonging to the same trusted domain (in the sense used by Section 8 of [RFC8402]). Current: The CPR mechanism can be used in network scenarios where multiple inter-connected ASes belong to the same operator, or where there is an operational trust model between the ASes of different operators which means they belong to the same trusted domain (in the sense used by Section 8 of [RFC8402]). --> 7) <!-- [rfced] What spans across multiple ASes? Is it the SR Policy or the tunnel? Original: As described in section 5 of [I-D.hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color], the inter-domain intent-aware routing may be achieved with a logical tunnel created by an SR Policy across multiple ASes, and service traffic with specific intent can be steered to the inter-domain SR Policy based on the intent signaled by Color Extended Community. Perhaps: As described in Section 5 of [INTENTAWARE], the inter-domain intent-aware routing may be achieved with a logical tunnel created by an SR Policy that applies to multiple ASes. In addition, service traffic with a specific intent can be steered to the inter-domain SR Policy based on the intent signaled by Color Extended Community. --> 8) <!-- [rfced] Is seems as though there may be words missing in the following. What can "fall back"? Original: This allows the CPR routes to be resolved to intent-aware intra-domain paths in any autonomous systems that support the CPR mechanism, while can fall back to resolve over best- effort intra-domain path in the legacy autonomous systems. --> 9) <!-- [rfced] Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used inconsistently. Please review. a) Colored Prefix vs Colored prefixes vs colored prefix We updated to use the form on the left. Please let us know if any updates are needed. In addition, please consider whether the capitalization of "Colored locator prefixes" is correct. b) Please review the use of the following and let us know how/if they may be updated for consistency. color extended community vs Color Extended Community --> 10) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should still be reviewed as a best practice. --> Thank you. RFC Editor On May 12, 2025, at 1:38 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/05/12 RFC Author(s): -------------- Instructions for Completing AUTH48 Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing your approval. Planning your review --------------------- Please review the following aspects of your document: * RFC Editor questions Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as follows: <!-- [rfced] ... --> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. * Changes submitted by coauthors Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. * Content Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) - contact information - references * Copyright notices and legends Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). * Semantic markup Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. * Formatted output Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. Submitting changes ------------------ To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties include: * your coauthors * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team) * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion list: * More info: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc * The archive itself: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and its addition will be noted at the top of the message. You may submit your changes in one of two ways: An update to the provided XML file — OR — An explicit list of changes in this format Section # (or indicate Global) OLD: old text NEW: new text You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit list of changes, as either form is sufficient. We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. Approving for publication -------------------------- To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. Files ----- The files are available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9723.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9723.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9723.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9723.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9723-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9723-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9723-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9723 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC 9723 (draft-ietf-idr-cpr-08) Title : BGP Colored Prefix Routing (CPR) for SRv6 based Services Author(s) : H. Wang, J. Dong, K. Talaulikar, T. Han, R. Chen WG Chair(s) : Susan Hares, Keyur Patel, Jeffrey Haas Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter Van de Velde -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
