Hi Stephane, Pierre, all, Thank you for your replies and for confirming those updates are correct.
Please note that we await responses to our document-specific questions before moving this document forward in the publication process. You may find these questions at the end of this email. The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9855 — FILES (please refresh): — The updated files have been posted here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855.xml The relevant diff files have been posted here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes only) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH 48 changes side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855-diff.html (all changes) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855-rfcdiff.html (all changes side by side) Thank you for your time, Kaelin Foody RFC Production Center ------------------------------------ Authors, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file. 1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> 2) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have made some adjustments to the abstract in order to clarify the expansions of some abbreviations. Please review and let us know if any further updates are necessary. Original: This document presents Topology Independent Loop-free Alternate Fast Reroute (TI-LFA), aimed at providing protection of node and adjacency segments within the Segment Routing (SR) framework. This Fast Reroute (FRR) behavior builds on proven IP Fast Reroute concepts being LFAs, remote LFAs (RLFA), and remote LFAs with directed forwarding (DLFA). Current: This document presents Topology Independent Loop-Free Alternate (TI- LFA) Fast Reroute (FRR), which is aimed at providing protection of node and adjacency segments within the Segment Routing (SR) framework. This FRR behavior builds on proven IP FRR concepts being LFAs, Remote LFAs (RLFAs), and remote LFAs with directed forwarding (DLFAs). --> 3) <!-- [rfced] We were unable to find the term "Directed Loop-Free Alternates (DLFA)" mentioned in RFC 5714. Is there an alternative reference that could be used here? Original: By utilizing Segment Routing (SR), TI-LFA eliminates the need to establish Targeted Label Distribution Protocol sessions with remote nodes for leveraging the benefits of Remote Loop-Free Alternates (RLFA) [RFC7490][RFC7916] or Directed Loop-Free Alternates (DLFA) [RFC5714]. --> 4) <!--[rfced] To improve readability, may we update "makes the requirement unnecessary" to "eliminates the need" in the sentence below? Original: Utilizing SR makes the requirement unnecessary to establish additional state within the network for enforcing explicit Fast Reroute (FRR) paths. Perhaps: Utilizing SR also eliminates the need to establish an additional state within the network for enforcing explicit Fast Reroute (FRR) paths. --> 5) <!-- [rfced] To improve readability, we have reformatted the text that appears at the end of the Introduction into a bulleted list. Please review. In addition, may we adjust these three items for consistency with the other list items (so that each list item begins with the section number it refers to)? Note: The section numbers in this document have changed so they may appear differently in the "Perhaps" text. Original: Using the properties defined in Section 5, Section 6 describes how to compute protection lists that encode a loop-free post-convergence path towards the destination. ... Certain considerations are needed when adjacency segments are used in a repare list. Section 10 provides an overview of these considerations. ... By implementing the algorithms detailed in this document within actual service provider and large enterprise network environments, real-life measurements are presented regarding the number of SIDs utilized by repair paths. These measurements are summarized in Appendix B. Perhaps: * Section 5 describes how to compute protection lists that encode a loop-free post-convergence path towards the destination using the properties defined in Section 4. ... * Section 9 provides an overview of the certain considerations that are needed when adjacency segments are used in a repair list. ... * Appendix B summarizes the measurements from implementing the algorithms detailed in this document within actual service provider and large enterprise network environments. Real-life measurements are presented regarding the number of SIDs utilized by repair paths. --> 6) <!-- [rfced] FYI - The main notations in the Terminology section were formatted inconsistently, so we have reformatted those items into a bulleted list. Please review the changes to the following items in particular: Original: Primary Interface: Primary Outgoing Interface: One of the outgoing interfaces towards a destination according to the IGP link-state protocol Primary Link: A link connected to the primary interface adj-sid(S-F): Adjacency Segment from node S to node F Current: * The primary interface and the primary outgoing interface are one of the outgoing interfaces towards a destination according to the IGP link-state protocol. * The primary link is a link connected to the primary interface. * The adj-sid(S-F) is the adjacency segment from node S to node F. --> 7) <!-- [rfced] To improve readability, may we break up this sentence into two sentences? If yes, would "the path" be the correct subject for the second sentence? Original: The repair list encodes the explicit, and possibly post-convergence, path to the destination, which avoids the protected resource X and, at the same time, is guaranteed to be loop-free irrespective of the state of FIBs along the nodes belonging to the explicit path as long as the states of the FIBs are programmed according to a link-state IGP. Perhaps: The repair list encodes the explicit (and possibly post-convergence) path to the destination, which avoids the protected resource X. At the same time, the path is guaranteed to be loop-free, irrespective of the state of FIBs along the nodes belonging to the explicit path, as long as the states of the FIBs are programmed according to a link-state IGP. --> 8) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have updated the "0" in "Adj-Sid(R20R3)" to "-". Please review and let us know if further updates are needed. Original: As a result, the TI-LFA repair list of S for destination D considering the failure of node N1 is: <Node-SID(R1), Adj-Sid(R1-R2), Adj-Sid(R20R3)> Current: As a result, the TI-LFA repair list of S for destination D considering the failure of node N1 is: <Node-SID(R1), Adj-Sid(R1-R2), Adj-Sid(R2-R3)>. --> 9) <!--[rfced] May we update "non protected" to "unprotected" in the sentence below? Original: To avoid the possibility of this double FRR activation, an implementation of TI-LFA MAY pick only non protected adjacency segments when building the repair list. Perhaps: To avoid the possibility of this double FRR activation, an implementation of TI-LFA MAY pick only unprotected adjacency segments when building the repair list. --> 10) <!-- [rfced] Terminology: a) We note different formatting and spacing for the following items throughout this document (some examples below). Please review and let us know if/how these items should be made consistent. spacing and apostrophe: P'(R,X) P'(R, X) P(R,X) spacing: [adj-sid(S-F),node(T),...] [adj-sid(S-F), node(T), ...] b) We note different capitalization and hyphenation for the following terms throughout this document (see some examples below). How should these be updated for consistency? Adjacency segment vs. adjacency segment Adjacency SIDs vs. adjacency SIDs Adj-SID vs. Adj-Sid vs. adj-SID vs. adj-sid Node SID vs. Node-SID vs. node-SID P-Space vs. P-space Q-Space vs. Q-space c) May we update all instances of "dataplane" to "data plane" for consistency with RFC 8660? d) FYI - For consistency with RFC 9350, we have updated the terms below as follows: OLD -> NEW FlexAlgo / Flex Algo -> Flexible Algorithm Flex Algo Definition -> Flexible Algorithm Definition --> 11) <!-- [rfced] Abbreviations: a) We note that "DLFA" has been expanded inconsistently throughout the document. For consistency, may we update all of these expansions to be "Directed Loop-Free Alternates"? Original: remote LFAs with directed forwarding (DLFA) DLFA: Remote LFA with Directed forwarding DLFA (LFA with directed forwarding) Directed Loop-Free Alternates (DLFA) Perhaps: Directed Loop-Free Alternates (DLFA) b) Per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"), abbreviations should be expanded upon first use. How may we expand "rSPF" in the text below? Original: ...in all the SPF/rSPF computations that are occurring during the TI-LFA computation. c) Both the expansion and the acronym for the following terms are used throughout the document. Would you like to update to using the expansion upon first usage and the acronym for the rest of the document for consistency? Point of Local Repair (PLR) Repair List (RL) Segment Routing (SR) d) FYI - We have added expansions for the following abbreviations per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. Segment Routing over MPLS (SR-MPLS) Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) Provider Edge (PE) --> 12) <!-- [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. --> > On Sep 25, 2025, at 4:59 AM, Stephane Litkowski (slitkows) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Kaelin, > On a) (below), I’m fine with the proposed text (NEW2) and you correctly > catched the duplicate. >>> OLD: >>> The measurement below indicates that, for link and local SRLG >>> protection, a 1-SID repair path delivers more than 99% coverage. For >>> node protection, a 2-SID repair path yields 99% coverage. >>> […] >>> The measurements listed in the tables indicate that for link and >>> local SRLG protection, a 1-SID repair path is sufficient to protect >>> more than 99% of the prefix in almost all cases. For node >>> protection, 2-SID repair paths yield 99% coverage. >>> This seems like a duplicate. I would suggest removing the second paragraph. >>> NEW: >>> The measurement below indicates that, for link and local SRLG >>> protection, a 1-SID repair path delivers more than 99% coverage. For >>> node protection, a 2-SID repair path yields 99% coverage. >>> In addition, text is not strictly correct. It’s not “a 1-SID repair path” >>> but “a 1-SID or less repair path. Idem for “2-SID. >>> Hence NEW2: The measurement below indicates that, for link and local >>> SRLG >>> protection, a 1-SID or less repair path delivers more than 99% coverage. >>> For >>> node protection, a 2-SID or less repair path yields 99% coverage. >>> Feel free to reword in a better way. > > On b), your first proposal (NEW) is good and correctly fixes the issue: >>> OLD: As mentioned in Section 3, a list of adjacency SIDs can be used to >>> encode the path between P and Q. However, the PLR can perform additional >>> computations to compute a list of segments that represent a loop-free path >>> from P to Q. >>> Problem: “a list of adjacency SIDs” _is_ (already) “a list of segments”. >>> Proposed NEW: As mentioned in Section 3, a list of adjacency SIDs can be >>> used to encode the path between P and Q. However, the PLR can perform >>> additional computations to compute a shorter list of segments that >>> represent a loop-free path from P to Q. >>> (+ ‘shorter’) > I’m good with the rest of the updates. > Thanks, > Stephane > From: Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2025 7:03 AM > To: Kaelin Foody <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; Stephane Litkowski (slitkows) <[email protected]>; > Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; [email protected]; danvoyerwork > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9855 > <draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-21> for your review > Hi authors, > Can you please review the document? There are a few other documents waiting > for the publication of this one. > Thanks, > Yingzhen > On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 1:11 PM Kaelin Foody <[email protected]> > wrote: > Hi Bruno, all, > > Bruno: Thank you for your response. We have updated your location in the > document as requested. > > Daniel: We have updated your email address in our database. Would you like > your email and company to be updated in the document as well? > > We will await responses to our document-specific questions prior to moving > this document forward in the publication process; we have included these > questions at the end of this email for your convenience. > > — FILES (please refresh): — > > The updated files have been posted here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855.xml > > The relevant diff files have been posted here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes > only) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH 48 > changes side by side) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855-diff.html (all changes) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855-rfcdiff.html (all changes side by > side) > > The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9855 > > Thank you, > > Kaelin Foody > RFC Production Center > >> On Sep 17, 2025, at 5:12 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> Greetings, >> >> Thanks Kaelin. >> Looks good. >> >> One more minor point >> >> OLD: >> Bruno Decraene >> Orange >> Issy-les-Moulineaux >> France >> >> NEW: >> Bruno Decraene >> Orange >> France >> >> >> (at minimum, this is not my current location. Plus I'm not quite sure that >> indicating the city is quite useful for such a small country). >> >> --Bruno >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Kaelin Foody <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2025 5:38 PM >> To: DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; >> danvoyerwork <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9855 >> <draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-21> for your review >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> CAUTION : This email originated outside the company. Do not click on any >> links or open attachments unless you are expecting them from the sender. >> >> ATTENTION : Cet e-mail provient de l'extérieur de l'entreprise. Ne cliquez >> pas sur les liens ou n'ouvrez pas les pièces jointes à moins de connaitre >> l'expéditeur. >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Greetings, >> >> Bruno: Thank you for your comments. We have updated the document accordingly. >> >> Daniel: We have updated your email address in our database. Would you like >> your email and company to be updated in the document as well? >> >> We have a few other follow-up notes: >> >> a) >> >>> OLD: >>> The measurement below indicates that, for link and local SRLG >>> protection, a 1-SID repair path delivers more than 99% coverage. For >>> node protection, a 2-SID repair path yields 99% coverage. >>> […] >>> The measurements listed in the tables indicate that for link and >>> local SRLG protection, a 1-SID repair path is sufficient to protect >>> more than 99% of the prefix in almost all cases. For node >>> protection, 2-SID repair paths yield 99% coverage. >>> This seems like a duplicate. I would suggest removing the second paragraph. >>> NEW: >>> The measurement below indicates that, for link and local SRLG >>> protection, a 1-SID repair path delivers more than 99% coverage. For >>> node protection, a 2-SID repair path yields 99% coverage. >>> In addition, text is not strictly correct. It’s not “a 1-SID repair path” >>> but “a 1-SID or less repair path. Idem for “2-SID. >>> Hence NEW2: The measurement below indicates that, for link and local >>> SRLG >>> protection, a 1-SID or less repair path delivers more than 99% coverage. >>> For >>> node protection, a 2-SID or less repair path yields 99% coverage. >>> Feel free to reword in a better way. >> >> We have updated Appendix B as follows. Please review and let us know if this >> update captures your intended meaning: >> >> OLD: >> The measurement below indicates that, for link and local SRLG protection, a >> 1-SID repair path delivers more than 99% coverage. For node protection, a >> 2-SID repair path yields 99% coverage. >> >> NEW: >> The measurement below indicates that, for link and local SRLG protection, a >> repair path of 1 SID or less delivers more than 99% coverage. For node >> protection, a repair path of 2 SIDs or less yields 99% coverage. >> >> >> b) >> >>> --- >>> §5.4 >>> OLD: As mentioned in Section 3, a list of adjacency SIDs can be used to >>> encode the path between P and Q. However, the PLR can perform additional >>> computations to compute a list of segments that represent a loop-free path >>> from P to Q. >>> Problem: “a list of adjacency SIDs” _is_ (already) “a list of segments”. >>> Proposed NEW: As mentioned in Section 3, a list of adjacency SIDs can be >>> used to encode the path between P and Q. However, the PLR can perform >>> additional computations to compute a shorter list of segments that >>> represent a loop-free path from P to Q. >>> (+ ‘shorter’) >>> Alternatively, we could introduce the term “node SIDs’ to explicit the >>> difference compared to the list of adjacency SIDs, but this may be harder >>> to phrase and less general. >>> e.g, Proposed NEW2: As mentioned in Section 3, a list of adjacency SIDs can >>> be used to encode the path between P and Q. However, the PLR can perform >>> additional computations to compute a list of node and adjacency segments >>> that represent a loop-free path from P to Q. >>> --- >> >> We have updated the document to use the first “Proposed NEW” as seen above. >> >> >> We will await responses to our other remaining questions prior to moving >> this document forward in the publication process. >> >> Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not >> make changes once it has been published as an RFC. >> >> — FILES (please refresh): — >> >> The updated files have been posted here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855.txt >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855.xml >> >> The relevant diff files have been posted here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes >> only) >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH 48 >> changes side by side) >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855-diff.html (all changes) >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855-rfcdiff.html (all changes side by >> side) >> >> The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9855 >> >> Thank you, >> >> Kaelin Foody >> RFC Production Center >> >> >>> On Sep 8, 2025, at 8:06 AM, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> All, >>> The email address used for Daniel Voyer is outdated. >>> Adding [email protected] to this thread as >>> perhttps://datatracker.ietf.org/person/[email protected] >>> From: DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET >>> Sent: Monday, September 8, 2025 1:55 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; >>> [email protected]; [email protected]; >>> [email protected]; [email protected]; >>> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >>> [email protected] >>> Subject: RE: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9855 >>> <draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-21> for your review Hi RFC >>> Editor, all Thanks for the document. >>> Please find below some comments. >>> Some comments are beyond editorial (§7.1, §5.4). Someone please review and >>> ack. >>> §5 >>> In figure 1, the link/line from R2 to N1 is significantly offset from >>> N1. It looks doable to better align the link & N1 >>> OLD: >>> S ------- N1 ----------- D >>> *\ | \ | >>> * \ | \ | >>> * \ | \ | >>> * N2-----R1****R2 *** R3 >>> * * >>> N3 ********* >>> NEW: >>> S --------- N1 --------- D >>> *\ | \ | >>> * \ | \ | >>> * \ | \ | >>> * N2----- R1***R2 *** R3 >>> * * >>> N3 ********** >>> ---- >>> §5.4 >>> OLD: post- convergence >>> NEW: post-convergence >>> --- >>> §5.4 >>> OLD: As mentioned in Section 3, a list of adjacency SIDs can be used to >>> encode the path between P and Q. However, the PLR can perform additional >>> computations to compute a list of segments that represent a loop-free path >>> from P to Q. >>> Problem: “a list of adjacency SIDs” _is_ (already) “a list of segments”. >>> Proposed NEW: As mentioned in Section 3, a list of adjacency SIDs can be >>> used to encode the path between P and Q. However, the PLR can perform >>> additional computations to compute a shorter list of segments that >>> represent a loop-free path from P to Q. >>> (+ ‘shorter’) >>> Alternatively, we could introduce the term “node SIDs’ to explicit the >>> difference compared to the list of adjacency SIDs, but this may be harder >>> to phrase and less general. >>> e.g, Proposed NEW2: As mentioned in Section 3, a list of adjacency SIDs can >>> be used to encode the path between P and Q. However, the PLR can perform >>> additional computations to compute a list of node and adjacency segments >>> that represent a loop-free path from P to Q. >>> --- >>> §7.1 >>> OLD: If the active segment is a node segment that has been signaled with >>> penultimate hop popping, and the repair list ends with an adjacency segment >>> terminating on a node that advertised the "NEXT" operation [RFC8402] of the >>> active segment, then the active segment MUST be popped before pushing the >>> repair list. >>> Problem: the penultimate does not really “advertise’ the NEXT >>> operation. (penultimate of popping is advertised by the ultimate node) >>> Proposed NEW: If the active segment is a node segment that has been >>> signaled with penultimate hop popping, and the repair list ends with an >>> adjacency segment terminating on the penultimate node of the active >>> segment, then the active segment MUST be popped before pushing the repair >>> list. >>> --- >>> Appendix A >>> OLD: >>> H --- I --- J >>> | | \ >>> PE4 | | PE3 >>> \ | (L) | / >>> A --- X --- B --- G >>> / | | \ >>> PE1 | | PE2 >>> \ | | / >>> C --- D --- E --- F >>> NEW: >>> H --- I --- J * >>> | | * >>> PE4 | | PE3 >>> \ | (L) | * >>> * A --- X --- B --- G * >>> * | | * >>> PE1 | | PE2 >>> * | | * >>> * C --- D --- E --- F * >>> Note: >>> - “In Figure 3, we consider a network with all metrics equal to 1 >>> except the metrics on links used by PE1, PE2, and PE3, which are 1000.” >>> - In all other Figures (1 & 2), we used a convention to use “**” for >>> the links having the high metric. I’d propose that we do the same >>> convention for Figure 3. >>> --- >>> Appendix A >>> “Another consideration to take into account is as follows: While using the >>> expected post-convergence path” >>> I’m not familiar with English typographic rules, but I would not have >>> expected an upper case “W” for “While” >>> -- >>> Appendix A >>> OLD: >>> The measurement below indicates that, for link and local SRLG >>> protection, a 1-SID repair path delivers more than 99% coverage. For >>> node protection, a 2-SID repair path yields 99% coverage. >>> […] >>> The measurements listed in the tables indicate that for link and >>> local SRLG protection, a 1-SID repair path is sufficient to protect >>> more than 99% of the prefix in almost all cases. For node >>> protection, 2-SID repair paths yield 99% coverage. >>> This seems like a duplicate. I would suggest removing the second paragraph. >>> NEW: >>> The measurement below indicates that, for link and local SRLG >>> protection, a 1-SID repair path delivers more than 99% coverage. For >>> node protection, a 2-SID repair path yields 99% coverage. >>> In addition, text is not strictly correct. It’s not “a 1-SID repair path” >>> but “a 1-SID or less repair path. Idem for “2-SID. >>> Hence NEW2: >>> The measurement below indicates that, for link and local SRLG >>> protection, a 1-SID or less repair path delivers more than 99% coverage. >>> For >>> node protection, a 2-SID or less repair path yields 99% coverage. >>> Feel free to reword in a better way. >>> -- >>> Appendix A >>> Nit picking… I would propose >>> OLD: 100.0% >>> NEW: 100% >>> (in all tables) >>> (as it’s mathematically not possible to go beyond 100%, the extra decimal >>> digit is useless, while slightly reduce readability) >>> Thanks, >>> Best regards, >>> --Bruno >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2025 6:19 PM >>> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >>> [email protected]; DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET >>> <[email protected]>; [email protected] >>> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; >>> [email protected]; [email protected]; >>> [email protected]; [email protected] >>> Subject: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9855 >>> <draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-21> for your review >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ---------------------------------------- >>> CAUTION : This email originated outside the company. Do not click on any >>> links or open attachments unless you are expecting them from the sender. >>> ATTENTION : Cet e-mail provient de l'extérieur de l'entreprise. Ne cliquez >>> pas sur les liens ou n'ouvrez pas les pièces jointes à moins de connaitre >>> l'expéditeur. >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ---------------------------------------- >>> *****IMPORTANT***** >>> Updated 2025/09/04 >>> 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 >>> * [email protected] (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). >>> * [email protected], 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, >>> [email protected] 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/rfc9855.xml >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855.pdf >>> >>> https://www/. >>> rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9855.txt&data=05%7C02%7Cbruno.decraene%4 >>> 0orange.com%7Cc7a9fd8845a54486865708ddf0805a40%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b >>> 9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638931156315194686%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFb >>> XB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCI >>> sIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=V5YL9pNkXYGm6J%2FEW%2FJ1zFHOYHLWa >>> A0SPmc83Ov0FRM%3D&reserved=0 >>> Diff file of the text: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855-diff.html >>> >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855-rfcdiff.html(side by side) Diff >>> of the XML: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855-xmldiff1.html >>> Tracking progress >>> ----------------- >>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >>> >>> https://www/. >>> rfc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9855&data=05%7C02%7Cbruno.decraene%40oran >>> ge.com%7Cc7a9fd8845a54486865708ddf0805a40%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b >>> 6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638931156315247502%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU >>> 1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldU >>> IjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WheJ1a7FZEcugy1Lc5f8KdHIJbjvnPP60YDOnH >>> k5P4I%3D&reserved=0 Please let us know if you have any questions. >>> Thank you for your cooperation, >>> RFC Editor >>> -------------------------------------- >>> RFC9855 (draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-21) >>> Title : Topology Independent Fast Reroute using Segment Routing >>> Author(s) : A. Bashandy, S. Litkowski, C. Filsfils, P. Francois, B. >>> Decraene, D. Voyer >>> WG Chair(s) : Jeff Tantsura, Yingzhen Qu >>> Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter Van de Velde >>> >>> ______________________________________________________________________ >>> ______________________________________ >>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations >>> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, >>> exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message >>> par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que >>> les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles >>> d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete >>> altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. >>> >>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or >>> privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be >>> distributed, used or copied without authorisation. >>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and >>> delete this message and its attachments. >>> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been >>> modified, changed or falsified. >>> Thank you. >> >> ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ >> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations >> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc >> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu >> ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler >> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages >> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, >> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou >> falsifie. Merci. >> >> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged >> information that may be protected by law; >> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. >> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and >> delete this message and its attachments. >> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been >> modified, changed or falsified. >> Thank you. -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
