Authors, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!-- [rfced] Per use in RFCs 9613, we updated the expansion for MNA from "MPLS Network Actions" (plural "Actions") to "MPLS Network Action" (singular "Action"). Note that we also made this change in the abstract and introduction. However, if you prefer to use the plural, perhaps we can update as follows. Original (document title): MPLS Network Actions (MNA) Framework Current: MPLS Network Action (MNA) Framework Perhaps: Framework for MPLS Network Actions (MNAs) --> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> 3) <!-- [rfced] Will readers understand which items are part of the series here? Does one of the following accurately convey the intended meaning? Original: These might include load-balancing a packet given its entropy, whether or not to perform fast-reroute on a failure, and whether or not a packet has metadata relevant to the forwarding actions along the path. Perhaps (entropy, whether or not..., whether or not...): These might include load-balancing a packet given its entropy, whether or not fast-reroute is performed on a failure, and whether or not a packet has metadata relevant to the forwarding actions along the path. Or (load-balancing, indicating, indicating): These might include load-balancing a packet given its entropy, indicating whether or not to perform Fast Reroute on a failure, and indicating whether or not a packet has metadata relevant to the forwarding actions along the path. --> 4) <!-- [rfced] We have a few questions about the similar text below from Sections 1.2 and 2. a) Please confirm that NSI is the correct acronym for "Network Action Sub-Stack Indicator". Should it be "NASI" rather than "NSI" to correspond with "Network Action Indicator (NAI)" and "Network Action Sub-Stack (NAS)"? b) Is the NSI the special-purpose label? If so, may we update the definition below as follows? c) The second definition below mentions "MNA label", but the first does not. Also, one definition uses "special label", and the other uses "special-purpose label". Are any updates needed? Original: * Network Action Sub-Stack Indicator (NSI): The first LSE in the NAS contains a special label that indicates the start of the NAS. ... * Network Action Sub-Stack Indicator (NSI): The first LSE in the NAS contains a special purpose label, called the MNA label, which is used to indicate the start of a network action sub-stack. Perhaps: Network Action Sub-Stack Indicator (NASI): The special-purpose label contained in the first LSE in the NAS. The NSI, also called the MNA label, indicates the start of the NAS. ... * Network Action Sub-Stack Indicator (NASI): The special-purpose label contained in the first LSE in the NAS. The NSI, also called the MNA label, indicates the start of the NAS. --> 5) <!-- [rfced] We see that "sub-stacks" (plural) is used early in the sentence and "sub-stack" (singular) is used later. Is the current correct, or should both instances be either plural or singular? Original: A solution must specify where in the label stack the network actions sub-stacks occur, if and how frequently they should be replicated within the label stack, and how the network action sub- stack and post-stack data are encoded. --> 6) <!-- [rfced] This sentence includes two instances of "post-stack data". Please confirm that this is correct. Original: As an example, post-stack data might appear as a label stack followed by post-stack data, followed by the payload: Perhaps: As an example, post-stack data might appear in a label stack, followed by the payload: --> 7) <!-- [rfced] Would updating "not more than one" to simply "one" or "a single" improve readability of this sentence? Original: This document assumes that the MPLS WG will select not more than one solution for the encoding of ISD and not more than one solution for the encoding of PSD. Perhaps: This document assumes that the MPLS WG will select a single solution for the encoding of ISD and a single solution for the encoding of PSD. --> 8) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We updated the parenthetical as shown below. Original: A node SHOULD use signaling (e.g., [RFC9088], [RFC9089]) to determine this. Updated: A node SHOULD use signaling (e.g., the signaling described in [RFC9088] and [RFC9089]) to determine this. --> 9) <!-- [rfced] Should the text introducing the list indicate if the value is "from one of the following" or "each of the following"? Or will readers understand? Original: An MNA node MUST use the RLD determined by selecting the first advertised non-zero value from: * The RLD advertised for the link. * The RLD advertised for the node. * The non-zero ERLD for the node. Perhaps: An MNA node MUST use the RLD determined by selecting the first advertised non-zero value from one of the following: * The RLD advertised for the link * The RLD advertised for the node * The non-zero ERLD for the node Or: An MNA node MUST use the RLD determined by selecting the first advertised non-zero value from each of the following: * The RLD advertised for the link * The RLD advertised for the node * The non-zero ERLD for the node --> 10) <!-- [rfced] Each definition below includes a number of bits except for TTL. Should the TTL definition also include a number of bits? Original: Label: Label value, 20 bits TC: Traffic Class, 3 bits S: Bottom of Stack, 1 bit TTL: Time To Live Perhaps: Label: Label value, 20 bits TC: Traffic Class, 3 bits S: Bottom of Stack, 1 bit TTL: Time To Live, 8 bits --> 11) <!-- [rfced] Figure 4 does not have a title; all the other figures do. What title should we add for Figure 4? Also, would it be helpful to revise the title of Figure 3 to be more descriptive? Current: Figure 3: A Label Stack Entry Figure 4 Perhaps: Figure 3: A Label Stack Entry with TC and TTL Retained Figure 4: A Label Stack Entry with TC and TTL Repurposed --> 12) <!-- [rfced] Should "NAI" here be plural (i.e., "NAIs")? Original: A solution may carry some NAI and AD as PSD. Perhaps (change to "NAIs"): A solution may carry some NAIs and AD as PSD. Or (remove "some"): A solution may carry NAI and AD as PSD. --> 13) <!-- [rfced] "ECMP'ed" has not been used in published RFCs. Will readers understand what this means? Perhaps rephrasing would be helpful. Original: For example, an Ethernet Pseudowire without a control word might have "4" or "6" in the first nibble and thus will be ECMP'ed. --> 14) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble understanding the text starting with "to determine...". Please clarify. Original: However, the BIER approach meets the design goal of [RFC8296] to determine that the payload is IPv4, IPv6 or with the header of a pseudowire packet with a control word, rather than being a payload belonging to a BIER or some other type of packet. --> 15) <!-- [rfced] How may we update this sentence for clarity? Original: Network actions should be defined in a document that must contain: Perhaps: The definition of a network action in a document must contain the following: Or: Network actions should be defined in a document using the format below: --> 16) <!-- [rfced] The "Scope", "State", and "Required/Optional" items below include complete sentences starting with "The document should..."; the other items in the list do not. How may we update these three items to create parallel structure in this list? Original: * Name: The name of the network action. * Network Action Indicator: The bit position or opcode that indicates that the network action is active. * Scope: The document should specify which nodes should perform the network action as described in Section 2.1. * State: The document should specify if the network action can modify state in the network, and if so, the state that may be modified and its side effects. * Required/Optional: The document should specify whether a node is required to perform the network action. * In-Stack Data: The number of LSEs of in-stack data, if any, and its encoding. If this is of a variable length, then the solution must specify how an implementation can determine this length without implementing the network action. * Post-Stack Data: The encoding of post-stack data, if any. If this is of a variable length, then the solution must specify how an implementation can determine this length without implementing the network action. Perhaps: Name: The name of the network action. Network Action Indicator: The bit position or opcode that indicates that the network action is active. Scope: Description of which nodes should perform the network action as described in Section 2.1. State: Indication of whether the network action can modify state in the network and, if so, the state that may be modified and its side effects. Required/Optional: Indication of whether a node is required to perform the network action. In-Stack Data: The number of LSEs of in-stack data, if any, and its encoding. If this is of a variable length, then the solution must specify how an implementation can determine this length without implementing the network action. Post-Stack Data: The encoding of post-stack data, if any. If this is of a variable length, then the solution must specify how an implementation can determine this length without implementing the network action. --> 17) <!-- [rfced] May we update this text as follows to clarify "its" and "this"? Original: In-Stack Data: The number of LSEs of in-stack data, if any, and its encoding. If this is of a variable length, then the solution must specify how an implementation can determine this length without implementing the network action. Post-Stack Data: The encoding of post-stack data, if any. If this is of a variable length, then the solution must specify how an implementation can determine this length without implementing the network action. Perhaps: In-Stack Data: The number of LSEs of in-stack data, if any, and the encoding of the in-stack data. If the in-stack data is of a variable length, then the solution must specify how an implementation can determine the length without implementing the network action. Post-Stack Data: The encoding of post-stack data, if any. If the post-stack data is of a variable length, then the solution must specify how an implementation can determine the length without implementing the network action. --> 18) <!-- [rfced] Would you like the references to be alphabetized or left in their current order? --> 19) <!-- [rfced] The following reference appears to point to IEEE Std 802.1AE with a date of August 2006. However, that version has been superseded by a new version dated December 2018. See https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8585421. We have updated this reference entry to current version. Please let us know if you have any objections. Original: [MACsec] IEEE Computer Society, "IEEE 802.1AE Media Access Control (MAC) Security", August 2006. Updated: [MACsec] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks-Media Access Control (MAC) Security", IEEE Std 802.1AE-2018, DOI 10.1109/ieeestd.2018.8585421, 26 December 2018, <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8585421>. --> 20) <!-- [rfced] Terminology a) If no objections, we will update instances of "sub-stack" (with hyphen) to "substack" (no hyphen). b) Please review use of "special label". Should instances of "special label" be updated to "special-purpose label"? --> 21) <!-- [rfced] Abbreviations a) FYI - We have added expansions for the following abbreviations per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) IP Fast Reroute (IPFRR) Fast Reroute (FRR) Label Switching Router (LSR) Media Access Control Security (MACsec) b) Is the abbreviation NAS read as "nass" or as "en-ay-ess"? We ask in order to choose the appropriate indefinite article for it to follow. Currently, both "an NAS" and "a NAS" are used in the document. c) The following abbreviations appear in the text but do not appear in Table 1. Would you like for them to be added to Table 1? LSP TC TTL d) Throughout the document, the expanded form of the following terms are often used although the abbreviations are introduced in Section 1. Would you like to use the abbreviations after the introduction in Section 1? Or do you prefer the current? network action sub-stack post-stack data ancillary data Entropy Label --> 22) <!-- [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/rv On May 13, 2025, at 9:06 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/05/13 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/rfc9789.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9789.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9789.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9789.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9789-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9789-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Alt-diff of the text (allows you to more easily view changes where text has been deleted or moved): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9789-alt-diff.html Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9789-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9789 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC9789 (draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk-15) Title : MPLS Network Actions (MNA) Framework Author(s) : L. Andersson, S. Bryant, M. Bocci, T. Li WG Chair(s) : Tarek Saad, Tony Li, Adrian Farrel 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
