Hi Rebecca
Thanks for the updated Auth48 text. I have a couple of comments.
Regards
Matthew
1. Introduction:
I think PSH in the second sentence should be pluralised:
OLD:
Examples of PSH include existing artifacts such as control
words [RFC4385 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/
rfc9790.html#RFC4385>], BIER (Bit Index Explicit Replication)
headers [RFC8296 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/
rfc9790.html#RFC8296>] and the like, as well as new types of PSH being
discussed by the MPLS Working Group.
NEW:
Examples of PSHs include existing artifacts such as control
words [RFC4385 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/
rfc9790.html#RFC4385>], BIER (Bit Index Explicit Replication)
headers [RFC8296 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/
rfc9790.html#RFC8296>] and the like, as well as new types of PSH being
discussed by the MPLS Working Group.
2.1 Definitions:
The definition of PSH is a bit unclear in terms of what it is referring
to for the optional field of interest, and it is also mandates that the
PSH must include a length when in fact most existing PSHs (such as the
PW CW or G-ACH) do not include such a field. I would propose rephrasing to:
OLD:
Post-Stack Header (PSH):
Optional field of interest to the egress Label Switching Router (LSR)
(and possibly to transit LSRs). Examples include a control word [RFC4385
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790.html#RFC4385>] [RFC8964
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790.html#RFC8964>] or an
associated channel [RFC4385 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/
rfc9790.html#RFC4385>] [RFC5586 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/
rfc9790.html#RFC5586>] [RFC9546 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/
rfc9790.html#RFC9546>]. The PSH *MUST* indicate its length, so that a
parser knows where the embedded packet starts.
NEW:
Post-Stack Header (PSH):
A field containing information which may be of interest to the egress
Label Switching Router (LSR) or transit LSRs. Examples include a control
word [RFC4385 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/
rfc9790.html#RFC4385>] [RFC8964 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/
rfc9790.html#RFC8964>] or an associated channel header [RFC4385
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790.html#RFC4385>] [RFC5586
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790.html#RFC5586>] [RFC9546
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790.html#RFC9546>]. A parser
needs to be able to determine where the PSH ends in order to find the
embedded packet.
Best regards,
Matthew
*From: *Rebecca VanRheenen <rvanrhee...@staff.rfc-editor.org>
*Date: *Thursday, 15 May 2025 at 22:01
*To: *Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com>, Kireeti Kompella
<kireeti.i...@gmail.com>, Stewart Bryant <s...@stewartbryant.com>, Matthew
Bocci (Nokia) <matthew.bo...@nokia.com>, Jie Dong <jie.d...@huawei.com>,
l...@pi.nu <l...@pi.nu>
*Cc: *RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, mpls-...@ietf.org <mpls-
a...@ietf.org>, MPLS Working Group <mpls-cha...@ietf.org>, Adrian Farrel
<adr...@olddog.co.uk>, James Guichard <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com>,
auth48archive <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
*Subject: *Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9790 <draft-ietf-mpls-1stnibble-13> for
your review
[You don't often get email from rvanrhee...@staff.rfc-editor.org. Learn
why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification
<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>]
CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking
links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional
information.
Hi Greg and other authors,
Greg - Thank you for addressing all of our questions! We have updated
the document accordingly.
All - Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we
do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us
with any further updates or with your approval of the document in its
current form. We will await approvals from each author prior to moving
forward in the publication process.
— FILES (please refresh) —
Updated XML file:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790.xml <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/authors/rfc9790.xml>
Updated output files:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790.txt <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/authors/rfc9790.txt>
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790.pdf <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/authors/rfc9790.pdf>
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790.html <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/authors/rfc9790.html>
Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790-auth48diff.html <https://
www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790-auth48diff.html>
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790-auth48rfcdiff.html <https://
www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790-auth48rfcdiff.html>(side by side)
Diff files showing all changes:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790-diff.html <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/authors/rfc9790-diff.html>
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790-rfcdiff.html <https://
www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790-rfcdiff.html>(side by side)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790-alt-diff.html <https://
www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790-alt-diff.html>(diff showing changes
where text is moved or deleted)
For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9790 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/
auth48/rfc9790>
Thank you,
RFC Editor/rv
On May 14, 2025, at 4:41 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear RFC Editor,
thank you for your help in improving this document. Please find my notes below tagged
GIM>>.
Regards,
Greg
From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wednesday, 14 May 2025 at 05:24
To: kireeti.i...@gmail.com <kireeti.i...@gmail.com>, s...@stewartbryant.com <s...@stewartbryant.com>,
Matthew Bocci (Nokia) <matthew.bo...@nokia.com>, gregimir...@gmail.com <gregimir...@gmail.com>,
l...@pi.nu <l...@pi.nu>, jie.d...@huawei.com <jie.d...@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>, adr...@olddog.co.uk <adr...@olddog.co.uk>,
james.n.guich...@futurewei.com <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com>, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
<auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9790 <draft-ietf-mpls-1stnibble-13> for your
review
CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links
or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information.
Authors,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the
following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!-- [rfced] Please note that the abbreviated title of the document has been
updated as follows. The abbreviated title only appears in the running
header in the pdf output.
Original:
1st nibble
Current:
First Nibble Following Label Stack
GIM>> Thank you; I agree.
-->
2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/search>. -->
GIM>> Perhaps
Post-stack header
Load-balancing
3) <!-- [rfced] Please clarify "in the context associated". Note that there
is a similar sentence in the IANA section.
Original:
Although some existing network
devices may use such a method, it needs to be stressed that the
correct interpretation of the Post-stack First Nibble (PFN) in a PSH
can be made only in the context associated using the control or
management plane with the Label Stack Element (LSE) or group of LSEs
in the preceding label stack that characterize the type of the PSH,
and that any attempt to rely on the value in any other context is
unreliable.
Perhaps:
Although some existing network
devices may use such a method, it needs to be stressed that the
correct interpretation of the Post-stack First Nibble (PFN) in a PSH
can be made only in the context of using the control or
management plane with the Label Stack Entry (LSE) or group of LSEs
in the preceding label stack that characterizes the type of the PSH.
Any attempt to rely on the value in any other context is
unreliable.
Or (similar to sentence in IANA section):
Although some existing network
devices may use such a method, it needs to be stressed that the
correct interpretation of the Post-stack First Nibble (PFN) in a PSH
can be made only in the context of the Label Stack Entry (LSE) or group of
LSEs
in the preceding label stack that characterizes the type of the PSH.
Any attempt to rely on the value in any other context is
unreliable.
GIM>> Thank you for your creative options. I will propose another re-wording
using the first option with s/of using/established through/:
Although some existing network
devices may use such a method, it needs to be stressed that the
correct interpretation of the Post-stack First Nibble (PFN) in a PSH
can be made only in the context established through the control or
management plane with the Label Stack Entry (LSE) or group of LSEs
in the preceding label stack that characterizes the type of the PSH.
Any attempt to rely on the value in any other context is
unreliable. -->
4) <!-- [rfced] How may we update the text starting with "including..." to
improve clarity?
Original:
* To stress the importance that any MPLS packet not carrying plain
IPv4 or IPv6 packets contains a PSH, including any new version of
IP (Section 2.4).
Perhaps:
* To stress that any MPLS packet not carrying plain
IPv4 or IPv6 packets contains a PSH. This also applies to packets of
any new version of IP (see Section 2.4).
GIM>> Excellent! I agree.
-->
5) <!-- [rfced] The sentences below are from the last two paragraphs of Section
1.
In the first sentence, will readers understand what is meant by "the
heuristic"? Would it be helpful to add more context, like that included
in the second sentence?
Original:
Based on the analysis of load-balancing techniques in Section 2.1.1,
this document, in Section 2.1.1.1, introduces a requirement that
deprecates the use of the heuristic and recommends using a dedicated
label value for load balancing.
...
Furthermore, this document updates [RFC4928] by deprecating the
heuristic method for identifying the type of packet encapsulated in
MPLS.
Perhaps:
Section 2.1.1 of this document includes an analysis of load-balancing
techniques; based on this, Section 2.1.1.1 introduces a requirement
that deprecates the use of the heuristic method for identifying the type
of packet encapsulated in MPLS and recommends using a
dedicated label value for load balancing.
...
Furthermore, this document updates [RFC4928] by deprecating this
heuristic method.
GIM>> I like the proposed update of the first paragraph. Since it is followed by two
sentences, would "this heuristic method" reference be clear to a reader? Would
keeping that part unchanged be acceptable?
-->
6) <!-- [rfced] Would you like to alphabetize the list of abbreviations in
Section 1.3
("Abbreviations")? Or do you prefer the current order?
Similarly, would you like to alphabetize the terms in Section 1.2
("Definitions") or keep the current order?
GIM>> Yes, alphabetize them, please.
-->
7) <!-- [rfced] We updated this text as shown below. Specifically, we moved the
third sentence of the first paragraph to follow the list and updated "A."
to read "Example A:". Let us know any concerns.
Original:
Figure 1 shows an MPLS packet with Layer 2 header X and a label stack
Y ending with Label-n. Then, there are three examples of an MPLS
payload displayed in Figure 2. The complete MPLS packet thus would
consist of [X Y A], or [X Y B], or [X Y C].
A. The first payload is a bare IP packet, i.e., no PSH. The PFN in
this case overlaps with the IP version number.
B. The next payload is a bare non-IP packet; again, no PSH. The PFN
here is the first nibble of the payload, whatever it happens to be.
C. The last example is an MPLS Payload that starts with a PSH
followed by the embedded packet. Here, the embedded packet could be
IP or non-IP.
Updated:
Figure 1 shows an MPLS packet with a Layer 2 header X and a label stack
Y ending with Label-n. Figure 2 displays three examples of an
MPLS payload:
Example A: The first payload is a bare IP packet, i.e., no PSH. The
PFN in this case overlaps with the IP version number.
Example B: The next payload is a bare non-IP packet; again, no PSH.
The PFN here is the first nibble of the payload, whatever it
happens to be.
Example C: This example is an MPLS Payload that starts with a PSH
followed by the embedded packet. Here, the embedded packet could
be IP or non-IP.
Thus, the complete MPLS packet would consist of [X Y A], [X Y B], or
[X Y C].
GIM>> Thank you for your updates that improve readability of the document.
-->
8) <!-- [rfced] For readability, may we update this list as follows?
Original:
There are four common ways to load balance an MPLS packet:
1. One can use the top label alone.
2. One can do better by using all of the non-SPLs (Special Purpose
Labels) [RFC7274] in the stack.
3. One can do even better by "divining" the type of embedded packet,
and using fields from the guessed header. The ramifications of
using this load-balancing technique are discussed in detail in
Section 2.1.1.1.
4. One can do best by using either an Entropy Label [RFC6790] or a
Flow-Aware Transport (FAT) Pseudowire Label [RFC6391] (see
Section 2.1.1.1).
Perhaps:
There are four common ways to load balance an MPLS packet:
1. Use the top label alone.
2. Use all of the non-SPLs (Special Purpose
Labels) [RFC7274] in the stack. This is better than using the
top label alone.
3. Divine the type of embedded packet
and use fields from the guessed header. The ramifications of
using this load-balancing technique are discussed in detail in
Section 2.1.1.1. This way is better than the two ways above.
4. Use either an Entropy Label [RFC6790] or a
Flow-Aware Transport (FAT) Pseudowire Label [RFC6391] (see
Section 2.1.1.1). This is the best way.
GIM>> I agree with the proposed updates with a suggestion to maintain quotation marks as
"divine".
-->
9) <!-- [rfced] Would including some text to introduce the numbered list in
Section 2.1.1.1 be helpful? If so, please provide the text.
GIM>> I think that the current text is sufficient but I am open to any text
other authors propose.
-->
10) <!-- [rfced] Would it be helpful to update "Support for" to "The framework
for" in this sentence?
Original:
Support for MPLS Network Actions (MNAs) is described in
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk] and is an enhancement to the MPLS
architecture.
Perhaps:
The framework for MPLS Network Actions (MNAs) is described in [RFC9789] and
is an enhancement to the MPLS architecture.
GIM>> I agree with the proposed change.
-->
11) <!-- [rfced] This sentence notes that the PFN value of 0x0 has two different
formats, but the IANA registry in Section 3 lists the value 0x0 three
times. Please review and let us know if any updates are needed.
Original:
This issue is described in section 3.6.1 of [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk]
and is further illustrated by the PFN value of 0x0 which has two
different formats depending on whether the PSH is a pseudowire
control word or a DetNet control word ...
GIM>> Your observation is correct. Value 0x0 is used by three services that are
listed in the IANA registry in Section 3. But two of these services use four-octet
long format, while one - eight-octet long format. Thus, three entries in the registry
but only two formats.
-->
12) <!-- [rfced] How may we clarify "leading to [RFC4928]"?
Original:
It was then discovered that
non-IP packets, misidentified as IP when the heuristic failed, were
being badly load balanced, leading to [RFC4928].
Perhaps:
It was then discovered that
non-IP packets, misidentified as IP when the heuristic failed, were
being badly load-balanced, leading to the scenario described in [RFC4928].
GIM>> Thank you for your creative editing! I agree with the proposed update.
-->
13) <!-- [rfced] What does "it" refer to here?
Original:
It would assist with the progress toward a simpler, more coherent
system of MPLS data encapsulation if the use a PSH for non-IP
payloads encapsulated in MPLS was obsoleted.
Perhaps:
If the use a PSH for non-IP
payloads encapsulated in MPLS were obsoleted, this would assist with
the progress toward a simpler, more coherent
system of MPLS data encapsulation
Or:
Obsoleting the use a PSH for non-IP
payloads encapsulated in MPLS would assist with the progress toward a
simpler, more coherent
system of MPLS data encapsulation.
GIM>> Thank you for proposing two excellent options.I slightly prefer the
second with a minor modification (two options ;-) :
s/the use a PSH/the use of a PSH/ or s/the use a PSH/using a PSH/
-->
14) <!-- [rfced] Please review "to load-balancing MPLS data flows". Should the
"load balance" be used instead of the "load-balancing"? Or
is the current correct?
Original:
However, before that
can be done, it is important to collect sufficient evidence that
there are no marketed or deployed implementations using the heuristic
practice to load-balancing MPLS data flows.
Perhaps:
However, before that
can be done, it is important to collect sufficient evidence that
there are no marketed or deployed implementations using the heuristic
practice to load balance MPLS data flows.
GIM>> I think that the current form is acceptable. What do other authors think?
-->
15) <!-- [rfced] We removed the expansion "Network Service Header" in Table 1 as
this is expanded previously in the document. If no objections, we will
ask IANA to update the "Post-Stack First Nibble" registry accordingly
prior to publication.
Link to registry: https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fpost-stack-first-
nibble&data=05%7C02%7Cmatthew.bocci%40nokia.com%7C8f9821d8e9c94a4affb208dd93f38fd0%7C5d4717519675428d917b70f44f9630b0%7C0%7C0%7C638829396764446385%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=gz3KCSRJkFUXqjZhW6jTKBtAxqfOPeeoJY0WaeOwpIk%3D&reserved=0 <https://www.iana.org/assignments/post-stack-first-nibble>
Original:
| NSH | 0x0 | NSH (Network Service Header)
| | | Base Header, payload
Current:
| NSH | 0x0 | NSH Base Header, paylod
GIM>> I agree; your update makes the table easier to read.
-->
16) <!-- [rfced] Abbreviations
a) FYI - We updated the expansion for LSE as follows to align with the
expansion used in RFCs-to-be 9789 and 9791. Also, "Label Stack Element" has
not been used in published RFCs.
Original:
Label Stack Element
Updated:
Label Stack Entry
GIM>> Great catch, thank you. I agree.
b) 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.
Deterministic Networking (DetNet)
Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS)
Media Access Control (MAC)
GIM>> Thank you for your thorough work with the document. I agree.
-->
17) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online
Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language
<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.
GIM>> Thank you for checking that. I couldn't find anything that raises a red
flag.
-->
Thank you.
RFC Editor/rv
On May 13, 2025, at 9:19 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/
<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) <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 <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 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-
announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc>
* The archive itself:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ <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/rfc9790.xml <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/authors/rfc9790.xml>
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790.html <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/authors/rfc9790.html>
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790.pdf <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/authors/rfc9790.pdf>
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790.txt <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/authors/rfc9790.txt>
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790-diff.html <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/authors/rfc9790-diff.html>
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790-rfcdiff.html <https://
www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790-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/rfc9790-alt-diff.html <https://
www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790-alt-diff.html>
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790-xmldiff1.html <https://
www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790-xmldiff1.html>
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9790 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/
auth48/rfc9790>
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC9790 (draft-ietf-mpls-1stnibble-13)
Title : IANA Registry and Processing Recommendations for the First
Nibble Following a Label Stack
Author(s) : K. Kompella, S. Bryant, M. Bocci, G. Mirsky, L. Andersson,
J. Dong
WG Chair(s) : Tarek Saad, Tony Li, Adrian Farrel
Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter Van de Velde
