Note from this IDR chair: The changes to date continue to reflect the WG's intent for the document. Thanks for adding to the quality of the document.
-- Jeff > On May 22, 2025, at 8:59 AM, Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > > 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
