Authors,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the
following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!--[rfced] Is the document title redundant (especially if the
abbreviation is expanded)? If our suggested title is not
agreeable, please let us know if a rephrase can be made. Note
that we have updated to use "Segment Type Extensions" (with Type
singular). Note that any changes to the document title will also
be reflected in the reference entry pointing to this document in
RFC-to-be 9830.
Original:
Segment Routing Segment Types Extensions for BGP SR Policy
As it would be expanded:
Segment Routing Segment Types Extensions for BGP Segment Routing Policy
Perhaps:
Segment Type Extensions for BGP Segment Routing (SR) Policy
With a corresponding update to the abbreviated title:
Original:
SR Segment Type Ext for BGP SR Policy
Perhaps:
Segment Type Ext for BGP SR Policy
-->
2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
3) <!--[rfced] Section 2: Please review and confirm that the switch
between "Segment List sub-TLV" in the first paragraph and
"Segment sub-TLV" in the second is intentional.
Original:
The Segment List sub-TLV [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi] encodes a....
and
A Segment sub-TLV describes a single segment in a segment list (i.e.,
-->
4) <!-- [rfced] The following text from Section 2 may require
clarification:
"As specified in Sections 2.4.4 and 2.4.4.2 of [RFC9830],
validation of an explicit path encoded by the Segment List sub-TLV
is beyond the scope of BGP and performed by the Segment Routing
Policy Module (SRPM) as described in Section 5 of [RFC9256]."
The term "Segment Routing Policy Module (SRPM)" doesn't appear in
[RFC9256].
-->
5) <!--[rfced] The following text led us to believe that the subsection
titles of Section 2 would match the Type names listed in Section
2 itself: but they do not. Please review and let us know if a
closer 1:1 matchup is desired between these.
Original:
[I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi] specifies Segment Type Sub-TLVs for the
segment types A and B. The following sub-sections specify the sub-
TLVs used for encoding each of the other Segment Types above.
-->
6) <!--[rfced] Please consider rephrasing the following text (the stacked
uses of "of" and repetition of "interface" might benefit from a
change).
Original:
Local Interface ID: 4 octets of interface index of local interface
(refer TLV 258 of [RFC9552]).
-->
7) <!-- [rfced] We note that Section 2.4.4.2.4 of [RFC9830] uses the term
"SRv6 SID Endpoint Behavior and Structure" rather than "SRv6
Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure". Please let us know if/how
these uses may be made consistent.
-->
8) <!--[rfced] Please review the entries in Table 1 in light of this response
regarding the names of sub-TLVs from Ketan when we discussed this topic for
RFC-to-be 9830:
Ketan:
"The names of the segments (titles) are to be "Segment Type X" while the name
of the sub-TLVs are to be "Type X Segment sub-TLV" (I've seen both sub-TLV and
Sub-TLV - either is OK but we should have been consistent). The "Type-1" is
actually "Type A Segment sub-TLV"."
If updates are necessary to the corresponding IANA registry, we will
communicate them on your behalf once AUTH48 concludes.
-->
9) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for abbreviations upon
first use per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please
review each expansion in the document carefully to ensure
correctness.
-->
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.
-->
Thank you.
Megan Ferguson
RFC Production Center
*****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/rfc9831.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9831.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9831.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9831.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9831-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9831-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9831-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9831
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC9831 (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-08)
Title : Segment Routing Segment Types Extensions for BGP SR Policy
Author(s) : K. Talaulikar, C. Filsfils, S. Previdi, P. Mattes, D. Jain
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
