Hi Jeffery and Jorge, We have updated the document accordingly!
Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC. We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the publication process. The updated files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9856.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9856.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9856.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9856.xml The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9856-diff.html (comprehensive diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9856-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes only) Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the most recent version. For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9856 Thank you, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Sep 3, 2025, at 1:15 PM, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzh...@juniper.net> > wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > Jorge and I discussed about a few editorial changes that I'd like to propose: > > 1.2.1. Intra-Subnet IP Multicast Forwarding > > ... > Procedures for Model (b) are specified in [RFC9251]. > > [RFC9572] should also be added here: > > Procedures for Model (b) are specified in [RFC9251] and [RFC9572]. > > For the following: > > An SFG can be represented as (*,G) if any source transmitting > multicast traffic to group G is considered a redundant G-source. > Alternatively, this document allows an SFG to be represented as > (S,G), where the source IP address S is a prefix of variable length. > In this case, a source is deemed a redundant G-source for the SFG if > its address falls within the specified prefix. > > In the alternative case, we'd need (S,G) state but in some places of the > document only talks about (*G). We can add one sentence to clarify: > > ... In the remainder of this document, some examples use (*,G) state for > brevity. Wherever an SFG is represented as (*,G), it should be understood as > interchangeable with (S,G).” > > In the following (and the remainder of the document): > > ... In this > solution, all upstream PEs connected to redundant G-sources for an > SFG (*,G) or (S,G) elect a "Single Forwarder (SF)" among themselves. > After the Single Forwarder is elected, the upstream PEs apply Reverse > Path Forwarding checks to the multicast state for the SFG: > > * Non-Single Forwarder Behavior: A non-Single Forwarder upstream PE > discards all (*,G) or (S,G) packets received over its local AC. > > The wording "Non-Single Forwarder" is better replaced with "Non-SF". > > For the following warm-standby procedure: > > - Route Targets (RTs): The Supplementary Broadcast Domain > Route Target (SBD-RT), if applicable, and the Broadcast > Domain Route Target (BD-RT) of the Broadcast Domain > receiving the traffic. The SBD-RT is needed so that the > route is imported by all PEs attached to the tenant domain > in an OISM solution. > > We should flip the order of SBD-RT and BD-RT, as follows: > > - Route Targets (RTs): The Broadcast > Domain Route Target (BD-RT) of the Broadcast Domain > receiving the traffic, and, if applicable the Supplementary > Broadcast Domain Route Target (SBD-RT), which is needed so that > the > route is imported by all PEs attached to the tenant domain > in an OISM solution. > > Thanks. > Jeffrey > > > Juniper Business Use Only > -----Original Message----- > From: Sarah Tarrant <starr...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > Sent: Friday, August 29, 2025 9:12 AM > To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <jorge.raba...@nokia.com> > Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org; Jayant Kotalwar (Nokia) > <jayant.kotal...@nokia.com>; Senthil Sathappan (Nokia) > <senthil.sathap...@nokia.com>; Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzh...@juniper.net>; > Wen Lin <w...@juniper.net>; bess-...@ietf.org; bess-cha...@ietf.org; > manka...@cisco.com; Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) > <gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com>; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9856 > <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source-15> for your review > > [External Email. Be cautious of content] > > > Hi Author, > > Thank you for your reply. We have marked your approval on the AUTH48 status > page for this document (see > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9856__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GvcdQU1qwnLEAD-VOlPPWPvjiUomNVrv_97acvcxa0N4d6yIGx8yietKEz4V3RNrN6jcbTIWfp8jt3_EqADKR7izqfk$ > ). > > Unless we hear objection at that time, we will assume your assent to any > further changes submitted by your coauthors. > > We will await approvals from each of the parties listed at the AUTH48 status > page prior to moving this document forward in the publication process. > > Thank you, > Sarah Tarrant > RFC Production Center > >> On Aug 29, 2025, at 3:23 AM, Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <jorge.raba...@nokia.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Sarah, >> Thank you very much for making the changes and your work on this. >> It looks good now and I approve the document for publication. >> Thanks! >> Jorge >> From: Sarah Tarrant <starr...@staff.rfc-editor.org> >> Date: Thursday, August 28, 2025 at 1:59 PM >> To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <jorge.raba...@nokia.com> >> Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, Jayant >> Kotalwar (Nokia) <jayant.kotal...@nokia.com>, Senthil Sathappan >> (Nokia) <senthil.sathap...@nokia.com>, zzh...@juniper.net >> <zzh...@juniper.net>, w...@juniper.net<w...@juniper.net>, >> bess-...@ietf.org <bess-...@ietf.org>, bess-cha...@ietf.org >> <bess-cha...@ietf.org>, manka...@cisco.com <manka...@cisco.com>, >> Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com>, >> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> >> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9856 >> <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source-15> for your review >> >> CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking >> links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional >> information. >> >> >> >> Hi Jorge, >> >> Thank you for your reply. We have updated the document accordingly. >> >> Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not >> make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any >> further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form. >> We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the >> publication process. >> >> The updated files have been posted here (please refresh): >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9856 >> .txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GvcdQU1qwnLEAD-VOlPPWPvjiUomNVrv_97acvcxa0N4d6yIG >> x8yietKEz4V3RNrN6jcbTIWfp8jt3_EqADK4CMmXm0$ >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9856 >> .pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GvcdQU1qwnLEAD-VOlPPWPvjiUomNVrv_97acvcxa0N4d6yIG >> x8yietKEz4V3RNrN6jcbTIWfp8jt3_EqADKLhq2irc$ >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9856 >> .html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GvcdQU1qwnLEAD-VOlPPWPvjiUomNVrv_97acvcxa0N4d6yI >> Gx8yietKEz4V3RNrN6jcbTIWfp8jt3_EqADKDFJ53M4$ >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9856 >> .xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GvcdQU1qwnLEAD-VOlPPWPvjiUomNVrv_97acvcxa0N4d6yIG >> x8yietKEz4V3RNrN6jcbTIWfp8jt3_EqADKxBXMyIc$ >> >> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9856 >> -diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GvcdQU1qwnLEAD-VOlPPWPvjiUomNVrv_97acvcxa0N >> 4d6yIGx8yietKEz4V3RNrN6jcbTIWfp8jt3_EqADKZ1PmYRI$ (comprehensive >> diff) >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9856 >> -auth48diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GvcdQU1qwnLEAD-VOlPPWPvjiUomNVrv_97ac >> vcxa0N4d6yIGx8yietKEz4V3RNrN6jcbTIWfp8jt3_EqADK-A21ruk$ (AUTH48 >> changes only) >> >> Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the >> most recent version. >> >> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9856_ >> _;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GvcdQU1qwnLEAD-VOlPPWPvjiUomNVrv_97acvcxa0N4d6yIGx8yie >> tKEz4V3RNrN6jcbTIWfp8jt3_EqADKR7izqfk$ >> >> Thank you, >> Sarah Tarrant >> RFC Production Center >> >>> On Aug 28, 2025, at 4:26 AM, Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) >>> <jorge.rabadan=40nokia....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Sarah, >>> Apologies for the delay. >>> Here you have my comments, please see in-line with [jorge]. >>> Thanks very much for your work on this. >>> Jorge >>> From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> >>> Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 at 11:05 AM >>> To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <jorge.raba...@nokia.com>, Jayant Kotalwar >>> (Nokia) <jayant.kotal...@nokia.com>, Senthil Sathappan (Nokia) >>> <senthil.sathap...@nokia.com>, zzh...@juniper.net >>> <zzh...@juniper.net>, w...@juniper.net<w...@juniper.net> >>> Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, >>> bess-...@ietf.org <bess-...@ietf.org>, bess-cha...@ietf.org >>> <bess-cha...@ietf.org>, manka...@cisco.com<manka...@cisco.com>, >>> Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com>, >>> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> >>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9856 >>> <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source-15> for your review >>> >>> CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking >>> links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional >>> information. >>> >>> >>> >>> 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? >>> --> >>> [jorge] yes, please >>> >>> >>> >>> 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__;!!NE >>> t6yMaO-gk!GvcdQU1qwnLEAD-VOlPPWPvjiUomNVrv_97acvcxa0N4d6yIGx8yietKEz >>> 4V3RNrN6jcbTIWfp8jt3_EqADKNjS4J8Y$ . --> [jorge] Warm standby, hot >>> standby, OISM, redundant G-source, SFG, Single Flow Group >>> >>> >>> >>> 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. >>> [jorge] your suggestion is good >>> >>> >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 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. >>> --> >>> [jorge] yes, it should be “destined” >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> --> >>> [jorge] yes, I agree it should match >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 | >>> --> >>> [jorge] yes, it is redundant, it can be suppressed if you want. >>> >>> >>> >>> 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) >>> --> >>> [jorge] yes, once introduced, the abbreviated form can be used >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> --> >>> [jorge] we should use “downstream”, “ESI label” and “upstream” consistently >>> if possible. >>> >>> >>> >>> 9) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of >>> the online Style Guide >>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/p >>> art2/*inclusive_language__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GvcdQU1qwnLEAD-VOlPPWPvjiUomNVrv_97acvcxa0N4d6yIGx8yietKEz4V3RNrN6jcbTIWfp8jt3_EqADKEqevvKs$ >>> > 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. >>> --> >>> [jorge] I didn’t find any word that could be replaced.. >>> [jorge] in addition, could you please make the following change (it should >>> be “multicast” and not “multicasts”?: >>> CURRENT (in the edited version) >>> In conventional IP multicast networks, such as those running >>> Protocol Independent Multicasts (PIMs) [RFC7761] NEW In conventional >>> IP multicast networks, such as those running Protocol Independent >>> Multicast (PIM) [RFC7761] Thank you! >>> Jorge >>> >>> >>> >>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GvcdQU1qwnLEAD-VOlPPWPvjiUomNVrv_97acvcxa0N4d6yIGx8yietKEz4V3RNrN6jcbTIWfp8jt3_EqADKbLLUprU$ >>> ). >>> >>> 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!GvcdQU1qwnLEAD-VOlPPWPvjiUomNVrv_97acvcxa0N4d6yIGx8yietKEz4V3RNrN6jcbTIWfp8jt3_EqADKeEclNb4$ >>> ). >>> >>> * 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!GvcdQU1qwnLEAD-VOlPPWPvjiUomNVrv_97acvcxa0N4d6yIGx8yietKEz4V3RNrN6jcbTIWfp8jt3_EqADKpD5_eoU$ >>> >. >>> >>> * 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/ie >>> tf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GvcdQU1qwnLE >>> AD-VOlPPWPvjiUomNVrv_97acvcxa0N4d6yIGx8yietKEz4V3RNrN6jcbTIWfp8jt3_E >>> qADKSTwlcdc$ >>> >>> * The archive itself: >>> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse >>> /auth48archive/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GvcdQU1qwnLEAD-VOlPPWPvjiUomNVrv_97a >>> cvcxa0N4d6yIGx8yietKEz4V3RNrN6jcbTIWfp8jt3_EqADKFJTb2X0$ >>> >>> * 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/rfc9856.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GvcdQU1qwnLEAD-VOlPPWPvjiUomNVrv_97acvcxa0N4d6yIGx8yietKEz4V3RNrN6jcbTIWfp8jt3_EqADKxBXMyIc$ >>> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9856.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GvcdQU1qwnLEAD-VOlPPWPvjiUomNVrv_97acvcxa0N4d6yIGx8yietKEz4V3RNrN6jcbTIWfp8jt3_EqADKDFJ53M4$ >>> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9856.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GvcdQU1qwnLEAD-VOlPPWPvjiUomNVrv_97acvcxa0N4d6yIGx8yietKEz4V3RNrN6jcbTIWfp8jt3_EqADKLhq2irc$ >>> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc98 >>> 56.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GvcdQU1qwnLEAD-VOlPPWPvjiUomNVrv_97acvcxa0N4d >>> 6yIGx8yietKEz4V3RNrN6jcbTIWfp8jt3_EqADK4CMmXm0$ >>> >>> Diff file of the text: >>> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9856-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GvcdQU1qwnLEAD-VOlPPWPvjiUomNVrv_97acvcxa0N4d6yIGx8yietKEz4V3RNrN6jcbTIWfp8jt3_EqADKZ1PmYRI$ >>> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc98 >>> 56-rfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GvcdQU1qwnLEAD-VOlPPWPvjiUomNVrv_97a >>> cvcxa0N4d6yIGx8yietKEz4V3RNrN6jcbTIWfp8jt3_EqADK1GAgmPg$ (side by >>> side) >>> >>> Diff of the XML: >>> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc98 >>> 56-xmldiff1.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GvcdQU1qwnLEAD-VOlPPWPvjiUomNVrv_97 >>> acvcxa0N4d6yIGx8yietKEz4V3RNrN6jcbTIWfp8jt3_EqADKGxod01U$ >>> >>> >>> Tracking progress >>> ----------------- >>> >>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >>> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc985 >>> 6__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!GvcdQU1qwnLEAD-VOlPPWPvjiUomNVrv_97acvcxa0N4d6yIGx >>> 8yietKEz4V3RNrN6jcbTIWfp8jt3_EqADKR7izqfk$ >>> >>> 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
