Authors, Thank you for your reviews. We have noted approvals from the following authors on the AUTH48 page <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9723>:
Jie Dong Ketan Talaulikar Tao Han Ran Chen We will wait for input from Haibo Wang before continuing with the process. Thank you, RFC Editor/sg > On May 22, 2025, at 2:43 AM, Hantao(hantao,Datacom) <han...@huawei.com> wrote: > > > Hi Sandy, > > Thanks for your work on this document. I also approve its publication as > RFC. > > Best regards, > Tao > > -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> > 发送时间: 2025年5月22日 15:14 > 收件人: Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > 抄送: RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; Wanghaibo (Rainsword) > <rainsword.w...@huawei.com>; ketant.i...@gmail.com; Hantao(hantao,Datacom) > <han...@huawei.com>; chen....@zte.com.cn; idr-...@ietf.org; > idr-cha...@ietf.org; sha...@ndzh.com; John Scudder <j...@juniper.net>; > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > 主题: RE: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9723 <draft-ietf-idr-cpr-08> for your review > > Hi Sandy, > > All the changes look good to me, thanks. I approve its publication as RFC. > > Best regards, > Jie > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> >> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2025 1:49 AM >> To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> >> Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; Wanghaibo (Rainsword) >> <rainsword.w...@huawei.com>; ketant.i...@gmail.com; >> Hantao(hantao,Datacom) <han...@huawei.com>; chen....@zte.com.cn; >> idr-...@ietf.org; idr-cha...@ietf.org; sha...@ndzh.com; John Scudder >> <j...@juniper.net>; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org >> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9723 <draft-ietf-idr-cpr-08> for your >> review >> >> Hi Dongjie, >> >> Thank you for your reply. We have updated the document as described >> below and posted the files here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9723.txt >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9723.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9723.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9723.xml >> >> AUTH48 diffs: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9723-auth48diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9723-auth48rfcdiff.html (side >> by >> side) >> >> Comprehensive diffs: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9723-diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9723-rfcdiff.html (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 May 14, 2025, at 7:54 AM, Dongjie (Jimmy) >> <jie.dong=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >>> >>> 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-4Q9l2U >>>> Sx >>>> IAe6P >>>> 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
