Hi,
Please see zzh> below.
Juniper Business Use Only
-----Original Message-----
From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2025 8:20 PM
To: xuxia...@cmss.chinamobile.com; mach.c...@huawei.com; ke...@arrcus.com;
i...@braindump.be; Antoni Przygienda <p...@juniper.net>; Jeffrey (Zhaohui)
Zhang <zzh...@juniper.net>
Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org; bier-...@ietf.org; bier-cha...@ietf.org;
chen....@zte.com.cn; gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9793 <draft-ietf-bier-idr-extensions-19> for
your review
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
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 title of the document has been updated as
follows.
Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style
Guide").
Please review.
Original:
BGP Extensions for BIER
Current:
BGP Extensions for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)
-->
Zzh> Ack.
2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the
title) for use on
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/search__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BJ6v2FOBd8VGkYJHlaHgnjGegvKzbIUfYyr46UWCbnU9e0rwA4mbmmtftAPg1aih3Jvh2GZMI2a16x_qopTsnJnq$
. -->
3) <!--[rfced] We see these two similar sentences in the Abstract and
Introduction. May we update the sentence from the Introduction to match the one
from the Abstract?
Zzh> Sure.
Abstract:
This document describes BGP extensions for advertising the BIER
information and methods for calculating BIER states based on the
advertisements.
Introduction:
This document describes BGP extensions for advertising the BIER-specific
information and the methods for calculating BIER forwarding states
with this information.
-->
4) <!--[rfced] FYI - We moved the Requirements Language paragraph to the
Terminology section per the RFC Style Guide; see Section 4 of RFC 7322.
-->
Zzh> Sure.
5) <!--[rfced] FYI - We note a mix of "one-octet" vs. "1-octet" and "two
octets" vs. "2 octets". We updated the document to use the numeral form for
consistency.
-->
Zzh> Thanks.
6) <!--[rfced] Should a citation be added for the quoted text below? Or may we
remove the quotation marks?
Zzh> Please remove the quotation marks.
Original:
If a BIER attribute is
received from the peer, it MUST be treated exactly as if it were an
unrecognized non-transitive attribute. That is, "it MUST be quietly
ignored and not passed along to other BGP peers".
-->
7) <!-- [rfced] Some author comments are present in the XML. Please confirm
that no updates related to these comments are outstanding. Note that the
comments will be deleted prior to publication.
-->
Zzh> Confirmed.
8) <!--[rfced] Acronyms
a) Both the expansion and the acronym for the following terms are used
throughout the document. After the first expansions, would you like to use only
the acronyms for consistency and per the guidance from the "Web Portion of the
Style Guide"
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/*ref_repo__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BJ6v2FOBd8VGkYJHlaHgnjGegvKzbIUfYyr46UWCbnU9e0rwA4mbmmtftAPg1aih3Jvh2GZMI2a16x_qoiGXIx1-$
>?
BFR Neighbor (BFR-NBR)
Set Identifier (SI)
Zzh> Yes, please.
b) Per RFC 8279, may we update the following acronym expansions to the latter
form listed for consistency?
BFER = BIER Forwarding Egress Router > Bit-Forwarding Egress Router
BFR = BIER Forwarding Router > Bit-Forwarding Router
BIFT = BIER Forwarding Table > Bit Index Forwarding Table
BFR-id = BIER Forwarding Router Identifier, BIER Forwarding Router
identifier > BFR Identifier
zzh> Ah, yes. Thank you.
c) FYI - We have added an expansion for the following abbreviation per Section
3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each expansion in the
document carefully to ensure correctness.
External BGP (EBGP)
-->
Zzh> Yes.
9) <!-- [rfced] Terminology
a) Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used
inconsistently. May we update to the latter form listed for consistency?
BIER Attribute > BIER attribute
BIER Path Attribute > BIER path attribute
MPLS encapsulation sub-TLV, MPLS encapsulation Sub-TLV, MPLS Encapsulation
Sub-TLV, Encapsulation sub-TLV > MPLS Encapsulation sub-TLV (per IANA)
non-MPLS encapsulation sub-TLV, non-MPLS encapsulation Sub-TLV >
non-MPLS Encapsulation sub-TLV (per IANA)
Nexthop sub-TLV > BIER Nexthop sub-TLV (per IANA)
Zzh> Yes. Thanks!
b) The following terminology appears to be used inconsistently throughout the
text. Please review and let us know if/how they may be made consistent.
Nexthop vs. nexthop
[Note that RFCs 4271, 7606, 8279, and 8296 use "next hop" (for general use).]
Zzh> There are many "BIER Nexthop sub-TLV". I'd like to keep the capital there.
The figure for the encoding also shows "Nexthop" and that matches other fields
like "Length". The text related to that sub-TLV uses capital, and I think that
is reasonable.
Zzh> The "nexthop" (lower case) in the following three places can be changed to
"next hop":
... If the BIER Nexthop sub-TLV is
not included, the BIER prefix will be used by receiving BFRs as the
BIER nexthop when calculating BIFT.
---------------
When BFR2 receives the route, it calculates its BIFT entries.
Because the route from BFER1 does not include a BIER Nexthop, BFR2
uses BFRer1's BFR-prefix as the nexthop.
-----------------
When BFR1 receives the routes, it calculates the BIFT entries, using
BFR2's address encoded in the BIER Nexthop sub-TLV as the nexthop.
Because BFR2 is not directly connected, a tunnel must be used.
Zzh> There are a few places where "Nexthop sub-TLV" is used w/o the preceding
"BIER". Those should be replaced with "BIER Nexthop sub-TLV".
Zzh> In the "6. Example of BIER Nexthop Usage and Handling", please add
sub-TLV after Nexthop.
Sub-domain vs. sub-domain
-->
Zzh> Please use "sub-domain" except in the text related to the figure about the
encoding.
Zzh> For example, "sub-domain" should be used in the following paragraph:
When creating a BIER attribute, a BFR MUST include one BIER TLV for
every Sub-domain that the prefix belongs to. The attribute type code
for the BIER Attribute is TBD. The value field of the BIER Attribute
contains one or more BIER TLV shown as follows:
zzh> While "Sub-domain" can be used in the following places:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 1 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-domain | BFR-ID | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~
| Sub-TLVs |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+..........................
Type: 1.
Length: Two octets encoding the length in octets of the Value
part.
Sub-domain [RFC8279]: ...
Zzh> Thanks!
Zzh> Jeffrey
10) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online
Style Guide
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/*inclusive_language__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BJ6v2FOBd8VGkYJHlaHgnjGegvKzbIUfYyr46UWCbnU9e0rwA4mbmmtftAPg1aih3Jvh2GZMI2a16x_qooA8SONK$
> 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/ap/kc
On May 27, 2025, at 5:18 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote:
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2025/05/27
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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BJ6v2FOBd8VGkYJHlaHgnjGegvKzbIUfYyr46UWCbnU9e0rwA4mbmmtftAPg1aih3Jvh2GZMI2a16x_qorCbWs3T$
).
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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BJ6v2FOBd8VGkYJHlaHgnjGegvKzbIUfYyr46UWCbnU9e0rwA4mbmmtftAPg1aih3Jvh2GZMI2a16x_qorkpCTZ3$
).
* 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BJ6v2FOBd8VGkYJHlaHgnjGegvKzbIUfYyr46UWCbnU9e0rwA4mbmmtftAPg1aih3Jvh2GZMI2a16x_qohwa_t3F$
>.
* 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BJ6v2FOBd8VGkYJHlaHgnjGegvKzbIUfYyr46UWCbnU9e0rwA4mbmmtftAPg1aih3Jvh2GZMI2a16x_qolLqKqFy$
* The archive itself:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BJ6v2FOBd8VGkYJHlaHgnjGegvKzbIUfYyr46UWCbnU9e0rwA4mbmmtftAPg1aih3Jvh2GZMI2a16x_qovujzSGw$
* 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9793.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BJ6v2FOBd8VGkYJHlaHgnjGegvKzbIUfYyr46UWCbnU9e0rwA4mbmmtftAPg1aih3Jvh2GZMI2a16x_qokw_3RTt$
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9793.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BJ6v2FOBd8VGkYJHlaHgnjGegvKzbIUfYyr46UWCbnU9e0rwA4mbmmtftAPg1aih3Jvh2GZMI2a16x_qonasllh-$
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9793.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BJ6v2FOBd8VGkYJHlaHgnjGegvKzbIUfYyr46UWCbnU9e0rwA4mbmmtftAPg1aih3Jvh2GZMI2a16x_qop-041dD$
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9793.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BJ6v2FOBd8VGkYJHlaHgnjGegvKzbIUfYyr46UWCbnU9e0rwA4mbmmtftAPg1aih3Jvh2GZMI2a16x_qouGvs8K2$
Diff file of the text:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9793-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BJ6v2FOBd8VGkYJHlaHgnjGegvKzbIUfYyr46UWCbnU9e0rwA4mbmmtftAPg1aih3Jvh2GZMI2a16x_qots0QlJN$
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9793-rfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BJ6v2FOBd8VGkYJHlaHgnjGegvKzbIUfYyr46UWCbnU9e0rwA4mbmmtftAPg1aih3Jvh2GZMI2a16x_qorEH-8sl$
(side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9793-xmldiff1.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BJ6v2FOBd8VGkYJHlaHgnjGegvKzbIUfYyr46UWCbnU9e0rwA4mbmmtftAPg1aih3Jvh2GZMI2a16x_qolwW7YVW$
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9793__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BJ6v2FOBd8VGkYJHlaHgnjGegvKzbIUfYyr46UWCbnU9e0rwA4mbmmtftAPg1aih3Jvh2GZMI2a16x_qovI0B0Uw$
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC9793 (draft-ietf-bier-idr-extensions-19)
Title : BGP Extensions for BIER
Author(s) : X. Xu, M. Chen, K. Patel, I. Wijnands, T. Przygienda, Z.
Zhang
WG Chair(s) : Tony Przygienda, Greg Shepherd
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
