Hi RFC Editor, Thanks for this mail. Please find my replies inline.
> -----Original Message----- > From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> > Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 4:41 AM > To: Wanghaibo (Rainsword) <rainsword.w...@huawei.com>; Dongjie (Jimmy) > <jie.d...@huawei.com>; ketant.i...@gmail.com; Hantao(hantao,Datacom) > <han...@huawei.com>; chen....@zte.com.cn > Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org; idr-...@ietf.org; idr-cha...@ietf.org; > sha...@ndzh.com; j...@juniper.net; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9723 <draft-ietf-idr-cpr-08> 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] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the > title) > for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> Please add: intent-aware routing as keyword. > > 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]. > --> > Thanks for catching this. Maybe the second sentence could be rephrased as: New: In MPLS-based networks, the usual inter-domain approach is to establish an end-to-end Label-Switched Path (LSP) based on the mechanism as defined in [RFC8277] (which is usually referred to as BGP-LU). > > 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. > --> Yes, that change looks good. > > > 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. > --> The IPv6 unicast AFI/SAFI is the combination of AFI =2 for IPv6 and SAFI = 1 (allocated by IANA) for unicast forwarding, and the mechanism for IPv6 unicast routing is specified in RFC 2545. It is an relatively old RFC and there is no IANA considerations section. How about rephrasing the text as: New: In a multi-AS IPv6 network, the mechanism for IPv6 unicast routing as defined in [RFC2545] is used for the advertisement of the Colored Prefix routes, in which the Address Family/Subsequent Address Family (AFI/SAFI = 2/1) is used. > > 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. The first bullet means "SRv6 Policy or SR-MPLS policy", and the second bullet means "SRv6 Flex-algo or SR-MPLS Flex-Algo". Maybe a better approach is to list each of them separately. New: The intra-domain color-aware path could be built with any of the following mechanisms: * SRv6 Policy * SR-MPLS Policy * SRv6 Flex-Algo * SR-MPLS Flex-Algo * 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]). > --> The updated text looks good, thanks. > > 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. > --> It should be the tunnel which spans across multiple ASes. The updated text looks good. > > 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. It is the CPR route which can fall back to resolve over best-effort intra-domain path. New: ...while the CPR routes can fall back to resolve over best-effort intra-domain paths 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. Please use "Colored Prefix", or "Colored Prefixes" for plural. > > > 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 Please use the latter one, thanks. > > --> > > > 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. After checking I believe the current text is OK in this aspect. Many thanks, Jie > --> > > > 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-4Q9l2USxIAe6P > 8O4Zc > > * 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
