Authors,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) 
the following questions, which are also in the XML file.

1) <!-- [rfced] Would you like the references to be alphabetized
or left in their current order?
-->


2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->


3) <!-- [rfced] We have removed "(IP DA)" as the abbreviation does not seem 
to be used in this document.  DA (by itself) also does not appear.  
Elsewhere, the text refers to "destination IP address".  Are these the 
same?  Should the definition for G-traffic be updated for consistency? 

Original:
   *  G-traffic: any frame with an IP payload whose IP Destination
      Address (IP DA) is a multicast group G.

Perhaps:
   G-traffic:  Any frame with an IP payload whose destination IP address
      is a multicast group G.

-->


4) <!-- [rfced] Should "destinated" be "destined?  

Original:
             In these scenarios, the upstream PE pushes
             the S-ESI labels on packets not only destinated for PEs
             sharing the ES but also for all PEs within the tenant
             domain.
-->


5) <!-- [rfced] Since RFC 9573 uses the term "Context-Specific Label Space 
ID Extended Community" rather than "Context Label Space ID Extended
Community", may we update to match? Note this would also update the
following terms to the term on the right:

   context label spaces > context-specific label spaces
   context label space ID > context-specific label space ID
-->


6) <!-- [rfced] Should "Flag" be part of the name?  The other registered 
values do not include "Flag".  It seems redundant, since it is a registry 
of flags.  If "Flag" is to be removed, we will ask IANA to update their 
registry accordingly. 

Original Table 2: 
                  +=====+==============+===============+
                  | Bit | Name         | Reference     |
                  +=====+==============+===============+
                  | 5   | ESI-DCB Flag | This Document |
-->


7) <!-- [rfced] Throughout the text, several abbreviations are introduced 
but not used or are repeatedly defined.  Please consider whether the 
abbreviated form should be used in most cases once the term has been 
introduced. 

For example: 
   Attachment Circuit (AC)
   Assisted Replication (AR)
   Bit Indexed Explicit Replication (BIER)
   Domain-wide Common Block (DCB)
   Designated Forwarder (DF)
   Ethernet Segment (ES)
   Ethernet Segment Identifier (ESI)
   Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag (IMET)
   Ingress Replication (IR)
   Supplementary Broadcast Domain (SBD)
   Supplementary Broadcast Domain Route Target (SBD-RT)
   Selective Multicast Ethernet Tag (SMET)
-->


8) <!-- [rfced] Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to 
be capitalized inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us
know if/how they may be made consistent.

   Downstream vs. downstream
   ESI Label vs. ESI label
   Upstream vs. upstream
-->


9) <!-- [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.
-->


Thank you.

Sarah Tarrant and Sandy Ginoza
RFC Production Center



On Aug 19, 2025, at 10:59 AM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2025/08/19

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-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
     
     *  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/rfc9856.xml
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9856.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9856.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9856.txt

Diff file of the text:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9856-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9856-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9856-xmldiff1.html


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9856

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC 9856 (draft-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source-15)

Title            : Multicast Source Redundancy in EVPN Networks
Author(s)        : J. Rabadan, J. Kotalwar, S. Sathappan, Z. Zhang, W. Lin
WG Chair(s)      : Matthew Bocci, Stephane Litkowski, Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang

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

Reply via email to