Hi Megan, Thanks for your help on this document. Please check inline below for responses.
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 8:03 AM <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > 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 > KT> Ack > > 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 > KT> Ack > --> > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in > the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> > > KT> 'Segment Routing', 'BGP-SRTE', 'SR-TE', 'BGP SR Policy SAFI' > > 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., > > --> > KT> Confirmed that it is intentional. > > > 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]. > > --> > KT> It should be RFC9830 > > > 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. > > KT> They look ok to me, but perhaps I don't follow your point. Could you please illustrate with an example? > > --> > > > 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]). > > KT> 4 octets carrying the interface index of the local interface (we can't avoid the repetition as those are two technical terms) > --> > > > 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. > --> > KT> I would prefer the latter, but then we'll also need to make it consistent in RFC9830 (e.g., https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9830.html#section-2.4.4.2.4 ) > > > 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. > KT> Yes, please apply the same to this document as well for consistency. However, I notice that the IANA sections in both 9830 and 9831 are not matching the sub-TLV names. Could you please fix that? https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9830.html#section-6.5 > > > --> > > > 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. > --> > KT> It looks good to me. Thanks, Ketan > > > 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
