Approved. -----Original Message----- From: Kaelin Foody <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2025 6:01 PM To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[email protected]>; Roman Danyliw <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Roman Danyliw <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9862 <draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-27> for your review
Warning: External Sender - do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Samuel and *Roman, * Roman - As AD, please review the following changes in Sections 4.4, 6.5, and 6.6 and let us know if you approve. The updates can be viewed here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9862-auth48diff.html. a) Section 4.4 (addition of “shortest” below): OLD: An example use case is to terminate the SR Policy before reaching the Endpoint and have decapsulated traffic be forwarded the rest of the path to the Endpoint node using the native Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) path(s). NEW: An example use case is to terminate the SR Policy before reaching the Endpoint and have decapsulated traffic be forwarded the rest of the path to the Endpoint node using the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) shortest path(s). b) Sections 6.5 and 6.6 (updates to the definitions in the IANA Considerations section): OLD: D: dropping - the LSP is currently attracting traffic and actively dropping it. D: drop enabled - the Drop-upon-invalid is enabled on the LSP. NEW: D: Dropping - the LSP is actively dropping traffic as a result of Drop-Upon-Invalid behavior being activated. D: Drop enabled - the Candidate Path has Drop-Upon-Invalid feature enabled. Samuel - Thank you for your reply; we have updated the document accordingly. A few follow-up notes: a) > <!--[rfced] Section 5.2.3 vs. IANA Considerations: > Should this text be updated to match the IANA-registered description > of each bit (which appears in Tables 6 and 7), or is it intentional > for Section 5.2.3 to differ? > > - See > https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#sr-policy-invalidatio > n-operational-flags > > Original: > * D: dropping - the LSP is actively dropping traffic as a result of > Drop-upon-invalid behavior being activated. > > Perhaps (if it should match the IANA registry, including the > capitalization change which we will request): > > * D: Dropping - the LSP is currently attracting traffic and > actively dropping it. > > > - See > https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#sr-policy-invalidatio > n-configuration-flags > > Original: > * D: drop enabled - the Candidate Path has Drop-upon-invalid feature > enabled. > > Perhaps (if it should match the IANA registry, including the > capitalization changes that we will request): > > * D: Drop enabled - the Drop-Upon-Invalid is enabled on the LSP. > --> > > Text in section 5.2.3 was intentionally updated based on comments, so it > would be better to do not revert it back to text from IANA section. Either we > can keep in current way (different text in Section 5.2.3 and IANA > considerations) or we will need to update IANA registry as well. We have left the text in Section 5.2.3 as is and have updated these definitions in the IANA Considerations section (Sections 6.5 and 6.6) to match how they appear in Section 5.2.3. Note that we will ask IANA to make this update along with the other registry updates. b) > <!-- [rfced] Please review the following questions about terminology. > > a) We note the following different uses of the term below. Please > review and let us know how to update for consistency. > > EXPLICIT-NULL-LABEL-POLICY (as seen in Table 2) Explicit NULL Label > Policy (ENLP) TLV Explicit Null Label Policy (ENLP) TLV Explicit NULL > Label Policy (E-Flag) Explicit NULL Label [RFC3032] Explicit Null > Label Policy Explicit NULL label/s explicit null label Note that > Explicit Null is… > • Term Explicit NULL is used in RFC3032, so please use “Explicit NULL Label > Policy (ENLP) TLV” for TLV name and “Explicit NULL Label Policy (E-Flag)” for > Flag. We have updated the items above accordingly. Please note that we have also updated the terms below (all from Section 5.2.2.) as follows. Please review and let us know if these updates are suitable: OLD: Explicit NULL Label [RFC3032] Explicit NULL label Explicit Null is currently only defined for… explicit null label NEW: Explicit NULL label [RFC3032] Explicit NULL label Explicit NULL is currently only defined for… Explicit NULL label Upon careful review, please contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form. We will await approvals from each author listed on the AUTH48 status page prior to moving forward in the publication process. The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9862 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/rfc9862.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9862.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9862.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9862.xml The relevant diff files have been posted here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9862-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes only) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9862-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH 48 changes side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9862-diff.html (all changes) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9862-rfcdiff.html (all changes side by side) Thank you for your time, Kaelin Foody RFC Production Center > On Sep 23, 2025, at 9:15 AM, Samuel Sidor (ssidor) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi RFC editor, > > Thanks a lot for your work! The diff looks fine to me. > > For inline comments from XML: > > • Global: > <!-- [rfced] This document updates RFC 8231. Please review the errata > reported for RFC 8231 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc8231> > and confirm that none are relevant to the content of this document. —> > > RFC 8281 errata checked, but I don’t see any of them being relevant to > this document > > • Global > > <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in > the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. —> > > OLD: > <keyword>example</keyword> > > NEW: > <keyword>PCEP</keyword> > <keyword>SR Policy</keyword> > <keyword>Candidate-Path</keyword> > > > • Introduction > <!-- [rfced] FYI, we added "for" here to make the meaning of the > parenthetical more clear. Please let us know if you prefer otherwise. > > Original: > Also, this document updates Section 5.8.2 of [RFC8231], making the > use of Path Computation Request (PCReq) and Path Computation Reply > (PCRep) messages optional for LSPs setup using Path Setup Type 1 > (Segment Routing) [RFC8664] and Path Setup Type 3 (SRv6) [RFC9603] > with the aim of reducing the PCEP message exchanges and simplifying > implementation. > [...] > > SR Policy LSP: An LSP setup using Path Setup Type [RFC8408] 1 > (Segment Routing) or 3 (SRv6). > > Current: > Also, this document updates Section 5.8.2 of [RFC8231], making the > use of Path Computation Request (PCReq) and Path Computation Reply > (PCRep) messages optional for LSPs that are set up using Path Setup > Type 1 (for Segment Routing) [RFC8664] and Path Setup Type 3 (for > SRv6) [RFC9603] with the aim of reducing the PCEP message exchanges > and simplifying implementation. > [...] > > SR Policy LSP: An LSP setup using Path Setup Type [RFC8408] 1 (for > Segment Routing) or 3 (for SRv6). > —> > I’m fine with updated text > > • Association Parameters > <!-- [rfced] We note that Figure 1 differs slightly from the other TLV > format figures in this document. Specifically, Figure 1 contains > values for Type and Length within the figure itself. Do you want to > remove these values from Figure 1 for consistency with the other figures in > this document? > > Figure 1: > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Type = 31 | Length = 8 or 20 | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Figure 2: > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Type | Length | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > > FYI, we updated the first list item after Figure 1 for consistency > with the other lists/figures. > > Original: > Type: Extended Association ID TLV, type = 31 [RFC8697]. > > Current: > Type: 31 for the Extended Association ID TLV [RFC8697]. > —> > > Figure 1 can be aligned with other figures. > > OLD: > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Type = 31 | Length = 8 or 20 | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > > NEW: > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Type | Length | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Updated text after Figure 1 is fine. > > > • Association Information > > <!--[rfced] FYI, several section titles have been updated to exactly > match the TLV name. If you prefer the original section titles, please > let us know. For example: > > Original: > 4.5.1. SR Policy Name TLV > 4.5.2. SR Policy Candidate Path Identifier TLV > > Current: > 4.5.1. SRPOLICY-POL-NAME TLV > 4.5.2. SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID TLV > --> > > It makes sense to have them aligned with actual TLV names, so updated text is > fine. > > > • SR Policy Signaling Extensions > <!-- [rfced] For clarity, may we update this text as follows? > This includes adding "they" after "therefore", adding punctuation, and > splitting the second sentence into two sentences. > > Original: > This section introduces mechanisms described for SR Policies in > [RFC9256] to PCEP. These extensions do not make use of the SRPA for > signaling in PCEP therefore cannot rely on the Association capability > negotiation in ASSOC-Type-List TLV and separate capability > negotiation is required. > > Perhaps: > This section introduces mechanisms described for SR Policies in > [RFC9256] to PCEP. These extensions do not make use of the SRPA for > signaling in PCEP; therefore, they cannot rely on the Association > capability negotiation in the ASSOC-Type-List TLV. Instead, separate > capability negotiation is required. > —> > > I’m fine with updated text. > > 7. Invalidation TLV > > <!--[rfced] Section 5.2.3 vs. IANA Considerations: > Should this text be updated to match the IANA-registered description > of each bit (which appears in Tables 6 and 7), or is it intentional > for Section 5.2.3 to differ? > > - See > https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#sr-policy-invalidatio > n-operational-flags > > Original: > * D: dropping - the LSP is actively dropping traffic as a result of > Drop-upon-invalid behavior being activated. > > Perhaps (if it should match the IANA registry, including the > capitalization change which we will request): > > * D: Dropping - the LSP is currently attracting traffic and > actively dropping it. > > > - See > https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#sr-policy-invalidatio > n-configuration-flags > > Original: > * D: drop enabled - the Candidate Path has Drop-upon-invalid feature > enabled. > > Perhaps (if it should match the IANA registry, including the > capitalization changes that we will request): > > * D: Drop enabled - the Drop-Upon-Invalid is enabled on the LSP. > --> > > Text in section 5.2.3 was intentionally updated based on comments, so it > would be better to do not revert it back to text from IANA section. Either we > can keep in current way (different text in Section 5.2.3 and IANA > considerations) or we will need to update IANA registry as well. > > 8. Drop-Upon-Invalid Applies to SR Policy > > <!--[rfced] Section 5.2.3.1: Does 'the D (dropping) flag set' refer to > the D flag (Dropping) from Figure 10 or the D flag (Drop enabled) from > Figure 11? > > Original: > Note that only one Candidate Path > needs to be reported to the PCE with the D (dropping) flag set. > > Perhaps (if from Figure 10): > Note that only one Candidate Path > needs to be reported to the PCE with the Dropping (D) flag set. > --> > > Dropping flag is referring to “D flag (Dropping)”, so proposed text is fine. > > 9. Information and Data Models > > <!-- [rfced] Does "described in Section 4" refer to Section 4 of this > document or Section 4 of [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-srv6-yang]? > > Original: > [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-srv6-yang] defines YANG module with common > building blocks for PCEP Extensions described in Section 4. > --> > > This refers to section 4 of this/current document. > > 10. Global > > <!-- [rfced] Please review the following questions about terminology. > > a) We note the following different uses of the term below. Please > review and let us know how to update for consistency. > > EXPLICIT-NULL-LABEL-POLICY (as seen in Table 2) Explicit NULL Label > Policy (ENLP) TLV Explicit Null Label Policy (ENLP) TLV Explicit NULL > Label Policy (E-Flag) Explicit NULL Label [RFC3032] Explicit Null > Label Policy Explicit NULL label/s explicit null label Note that > Explicit Null is... > > b) We note different capitalization for the terms below. Please review > and let us know how to update for consistency. > > Destination vs. destination > > Preference vs. preference > > Candidate Path vs. candidate path > —> > > • Term Explicit NULL is used in RFC3032, so please use “Explicit NULL > Label Policy (ENLP) TLV” for TLV name and “Explicit NULL Label Policy > (E-Flag)” for Flag. > • > • "Destination vs. destination” - all four occurrences can be used with > lowercase > • “Preference vs. preference" - that inconsistency seems to be coming from > “https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9256.html#name-preference-of-a-candidate-p”. > Please use “Preference” in all occurrences except one occurrence in section > 5.2.3.1 in this statement, where usage of “Preference” does not make sense: > If so, the SR Policy enters the drop > state and "activates" the highest preference Candidate Path which has > the Drop-upon-invalid enabled. > > • “Candidate Path vs. candidate path” - please use “Candidate Path" > > 11. Global > > <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have already updated the following terms for > consistency within the document and to match usage in other RFCs. Please > review: > > a) For the terms below, we have updated the form(s) on the left to the > form on the right. > > association type / Association type -> Association Type (per RFC 8697) > > Association Parameters -> association parameters (per RFC 8697) > > ASSOCIATION Object -> ASSOCIATION object (per RFC 8697) > > Protocol Origin -> Protocol-Origin (per Section 2.3 of RFC 9256) > > Drop-upon-invalid -> Drop-Upon-Invalid (per Section 8.2 of RFC 9256) > > b) We note flags are stylized differently throughout (see some > examples below). For consistency, we have updated all of these > instances to P-flag, E-flag, etc. > > P-flag > P flag > E-Flag > E flag > I-Flag > I flag > L-Flag > L flag > "L-Flag" > O-flag > > So, we will ask IANA to update to lowercase 'f' consistently in the > description in this registry > (https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#sr-policy-capability > -tlv-flag-field) unless you let us know otherwise. Specifically, for > bits 27, 29, and 30: > OLD: L-Flag, I-Flag, E-Flag > NEW: L-flag, I-flag, E-flag > > > c) FYI, "<headend, color, endpoint>" has been capitalized for > consistency with Section 2.1 of [RFC9256]. > > Original: > Per Section 2.1 of [RFC9256], an SR Policy is identified through the > <headend, color, endpoint> tuple. > > The last hop of a computed SR Policy Candidate Path MAY differ from > the Endpoint contained in the <headend, color, endpoint> tuple. > > Current: > Per Section 2.1 of [RFC9256], an SR Policy is identified through the > <Headend, Color, Endpoint> tuple. > > The last hop of a computed SR Policy Candidate Path MAY differ from the > Endpoint contained in the <Headend, Color, Endpoint> tuple. > —> > > All of those are find. Thanks a lot for updating all of those. > > 12. Global > > <!-- [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. > > For example, please consider whether "native" should be updated in the text > below: > > An example use case is to terminate the SR Policy before reaching the > Endpoint and have decapsulated traffic be forwarded the rest of the > path to the Endpoint node using the native Interior Gateway Protocol > (IGP) path(s). > —> > > OLD: > An example use case is to terminate the SR Policy before reaching the > Endpoint and have decapsulated traffic be forwarded the rest of the > path to the Endpoint node using the native Interior Gateway Protocol > (IGP) path(s). > > > NEW: > An example use case is to terminate the SR Policy before reaching the > Endpoint and have decapsulated traffic be forwarded the rest of the > path to the Endpoint node using the Interior Gateway Protocol > (IGP) shortest path(s). > > Thanks a lot, > Samuel > > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Date: Friday, 19 September 2025 at 07:49 > To: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[email protected]>, Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[email protected]>, > [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[email protected]>, > [email protected]<[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] > <[email protected]> > Subject: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9862 > <draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-27> for your review > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > Updated 2025/09/18 > > 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-4Q9l2USxI > Ae6P8O4Zc > > * 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/rfc9862.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9862.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9862.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9862.txt > > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9862-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9862-rfcdiff.html (side by > side) > > Diff of the XML: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9862-xmldiff1.html > > > Tracking progress > ----------------- > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9862 > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > > -------------------------------------- > RFC9862 (draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-27) > > Title : Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) > Extensions for Segment Routing (SR) Policy Candidate Paths > Author(s) : M. Koldychev, S. Sivabalan, S. Sidor, C. Barth, S. Peng, > H. Bidgoli > WG Chair(s) : Julien Meuric, Dhruv Dhody > Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter Van de Velde > On Sep 23, 2025, at 9:15 AM, Samuel Sidor (ssidor) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi RFC editor, > > Thanks a lot for your work! The diff looks fine to me. > > For inline comments from XML: > > • Global: > <!-- [rfced] This document updates RFC 8231. Please review the errata > reported for RFC 8231 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc8231> > and confirm that none are relevant to the content of this document. —> > > RFC 8281 errata checked, but I don’t see any of them being relevant to > this document > > • Global > > <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in > the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. —> > > OLD: > <keyword>example</keyword> > > NEW: > <keyword>PCEP</keyword> > <keyword>SR Policy</keyword> > <keyword>Candidate-Path</keyword> > > > • Introduction > <!-- [rfced] FYI, we added "for" here to make the meaning of the > parenthetical more clear. Please let us know if you prefer otherwise. > > Original: > Also, this document updates Section 5.8.2 of [RFC8231], making the > use of Path Computation Request (PCReq) and Path Computation Reply > (PCRep) messages optional for LSPs setup using Path Setup Type 1 > (Segment Routing) [RFC8664] and Path Setup Type 3 (SRv6) [RFC9603] > with the aim of reducing the PCEP message exchanges and simplifying > implementation. > [...] > > SR Policy LSP: An LSP setup using Path Setup Type [RFC8408] 1 > (Segment Routing) or 3 (SRv6). > > Current: > Also, this document updates Section 5.8.2 of [RFC8231], making the > use of Path Computation Request (PCReq) and Path Computation Reply > (PCRep) messages optional for LSPs that are set up using Path Setup > Type 1 (for Segment Routing) [RFC8664] and Path Setup Type 3 (for > SRv6) [RFC9603] with the aim of reducing the PCEP message exchanges > and simplifying implementation. > [...] > > SR Policy LSP: An LSP setup using Path Setup Type [RFC8408] 1 (for > Segment Routing) or 3 (for SRv6). > —> > I’m fine with updated text > > • Association Parameters > <!-- [rfced] We note that Figure 1 differs slightly from the other TLV > format figures in this document. Specifically, Figure 1 contains > values for Type and Length within the figure itself. Do you want to > remove these values from Figure 1 for consistency with the other figures in > this document? > > Figure 1: > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Type = 31 | Length = 8 or 20 | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Figure 2: > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Type | Length | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > > FYI, we updated the first list item after Figure 1 for consistency > with the other lists/figures. > > Original: > Type: Extended Association ID TLV, type = 31 [RFC8697]. > > Current: > Type: 31 for the Extended Association ID TLV [RFC8697]. > —> > > Figure 1 can be aligned with other figures. > > OLD: > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Type = 31 | Length = 8 or 20 | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > > NEW: > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Type | Length | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Updated text after Figure 1 is fine. > > > • Association Information > > <!--[rfced] FYI, several section titles have been updated to exactly > match the TLV name. If you prefer the original section titles, please > let us know. For example: > > Original: > 4.5.1. SR Policy Name TLV > 4.5.2. SR Policy Candidate Path Identifier TLV > > Current: > 4.5.1. SRPOLICY-POL-NAME TLV > 4.5.2. SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID TLV > --> > > It makes sense to have them aligned with actual TLV names, so updated text is > fine. > > > • SR Policy Signaling Extensions > <!-- [rfced] For clarity, may we update this text as follows? > This includes adding "they" after "therefore", adding punctuation, and > splitting the second sentence into two sentences. > > Original: > This section introduces mechanisms described for SR Policies in > [RFC9256] to PCEP. These extensions do not make use of the SRPA for > signaling in PCEP therefore cannot rely on the Association capability > negotiation in ASSOC-Type-List TLV and separate capability > negotiation is required. > > Perhaps: > This section introduces mechanisms described for SR Policies in > [RFC9256] to PCEP. These extensions do not make use of the SRPA for > signaling in PCEP; therefore, they cannot rely on the Association > capability negotiation in the ASSOC-Type-List TLV. Instead, separate > capability negotiation is required. > —> > > I’m fine with updated text. > > 7. Invalidation TLV > > <!--[rfced] Section 5.2.3 vs. IANA Considerations: > Should this text be updated to match the IANA-registered description > of each bit (which appears in Tables 6 and 7), or is it intentional > for Section 5.2.3 to differ? > > - See > https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#sr-policy-invalidatio > n-operational-flags > > Original: > * D: dropping - the LSP is actively dropping traffic as a result of > Drop-upon-invalid behavior being activated. > > Perhaps (if it should match the IANA registry, including the > capitalization change which we will request): > > * D: Dropping - the LSP is currently attracting traffic and > actively dropping it. > > > - See > https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#sr-policy-invalidatio > n-configuration-flags > > Original: > * D: drop enabled - the Candidate Path has Drop-upon-invalid feature > enabled. > > Perhaps (if it should match the IANA registry, including the > capitalization changes that we will request): > > * D: Drop enabled - the Drop-Upon-Invalid is enabled on the LSP. > --> > > Text in section 5.2.3 was intentionally updated based on comments, so it > would be better to do not revert it back to text from IANA section. Either we > can keep in current way (different text in Section 5.2.3 and IANA > considerations) or we will need to update IANA registry as well. > > 8. Drop-Upon-Invalid Applies to SR Policy > > <!--[rfced] Section 5.2.3.1: Does 'the D (dropping) flag set' refer to > the D flag (Dropping) from Figure 10 or the D flag (Drop enabled) from > Figure 11? > > Original: > Note that only one Candidate Path > needs to be reported to the PCE with the D (dropping) flag set. > > Perhaps (if from Figure 10): > Note that only one Candidate Path > needs to be reported to the PCE with the Dropping (D) flag set. > --> > > Dropping flag is referring to “D flag (Dropping)”, so proposed text is fine. > > 9. Information and Data Models > > <!-- [rfced] Does "described in Section 4" refer to Section 4 of this > document or Section 4 of [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-srv6-yang]? > > Original: > [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-srv6-yang] defines YANG module with common > building blocks for PCEP Extensions described in Section 4. > --> > > This refers to section 4 of this/current document. > > 10. Global > > <!-- [rfced] Please review the following questions about terminology. > > a) We note the following different uses of the term below. Please > review and let us know how to update for consistency. > > EXPLICIT-NULL-LABEL-POLICY (as seen in Table 2) Explicit NULL Label > Policy (ENLP) TLV Explicit Null Label Policy (ENLP) TLV Explicit NULL > Label Policy (E-Flag) Explicit NULL Label [RFC3032] Explicit Null > Label Policy Explicit NULL label/s explicit null label Note that > Explicit Null is... > > b) We note different capitalization for the terms below. Please review > and let us know how to update for consistency. > > Destination vs. destination > > Preference vs. preference > > Candidate Path vs. candidate path > —> > > • Term Explicit NULL is used in RFC3032, so please use “Explicit NULL > Label Policy (ENLP) TLV” for TLV name and “Explicit NULL Label Policy > (E-Flag)” for Flag. > • > • "Destination vs. destination” - all four occurrences can be used with > lowercase > • “Preference vs. preference" - that inconsistency seems to be coming > from > “https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9256.html#name-preference-of-a-candidate-p”. > Please use “Preference” in all occurrences except one occurrence in section > 5.2.3.1 in this statement, where usage of “Preference” does not make sense: > If so, the SR Policy enters the drop > state and "activates" the highest preference Candidate Path which has > the Drop-upon-invalid enabled. > > • “Candidate Path vs. candidate path” - please use “Candidate Path" > > 11. Global > > <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have already updated the following terms for > consistency within the document and to match usage in other RFCs. Please > review: > > a) For the terms below, we have updated the form(s) on the left to the > form on the right. > > association type / Association type -> Association Type (per RFC 8697) > > Association Parameters -> association parameters (per RFC 8697) > > ASSOCIATION Object -> ASSOCIATION object (per RFC 8697) > > Protocol Origin -> Protocol-Origin (per Section 2.3 of RFC 9256) > > Drop-upon-invalid -> Drop-Upon-Invalid (per Section 8.2 of RFC 9256) > > b) We note flags are stylized differently throughout (see some > examples below). For consistency, we have updated all of these > instances to P-flag, E-flag, etc. > > P-flag > P flag > E-Flag > E flag > I-Flag > I flag > L-Flag > L flag > "L-Flag" > O-flag > > So, we will ask IANA to update to lowercase 'f' consistently in the > description in this registry > (https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#sr-policy-capability > -tlv-flag-field) unless you let us know otherwise. Specifically, for > bits 27, 29, and 30: > OLD: L-Flag, I-Flag, E-Flag > NEW: L-flag, I-flag, E-flag > > > c) FYI, "<headend, color, endpoint>" has been capitalized for > consistency with Section 2.1 of [RFC9256]. > > Original: > Per Section 2.1 of [RFC9256], an SR Policy is identified through the > <headend, color, endpoint> tuple. > > The last hop of a computed SR Policy Candidate Path MAY differ from > the Endpoint contained in the <headend, color, endpoint> tuple. > > Current: > Per Section 2.1 of [RFC9256], an SR Policy is identified through the > <Headend, Color, Endpoint> tuple. > > The last hop of a computed SR Policy Candidate Path MAY differ from the > Endpoint contained in the <Headend, Color, Endpoint> tuple. > —> > > All of those are find. Thanks a lot for updating all of those. > > 12. Global > > <!-- [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. > > For example, please consider whether "native" should be updated in the text > below: > > An example use case is to terminate the SR Policy before reaching the > Endpoint and have decapsulated traffic be forwarded the rest of the > path to the Endpoint node using the native Interior Gateway Protocol > (IGP) path(s). > —> > > OLD: > An example use case is to terminate the SR Policy before reaching the > Endpoint and have decapsulated traffic be forwarded the rest of the > path to the Endpoint node using the native Interior Gateway Protocol > (IGP) path(s). > > > NEW: > An example use case is to terminate the SR Policy before reaching the > Endpoint and have decapsulated traffic be forwarded the rest of the > path to the Endpoint node using the Interior Gateway Protocol > (IGP) shortest path(s). > > Thanks a lot, > Samuel > > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Date: Friday, 19 September 2025 at 07:49 > To: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[email protected]>, Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[email protected]>, > [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[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] > <[email protected]> > Subject: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9862 > <draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-27> for your review > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > Updated 2025/09/18 > > 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-4Q9l2USxI > Ae6P8O4Zc > > * 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/rfc9862.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9862.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9862.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9862.txt > > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9862-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9862-rfcdiff.html (side by > side) > > Diff of the XML: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9862-xmldiff1.html > > > Tracking progress > ----------------- > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9862 > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > > -------------------------------------- > RFC9862 (draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-27) > > Title : Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) > Extensions for Segment Routing (SR) Policy Candidate Paths > Author(s) : M. Koldychev, S. Sivabalan, S. Sidor, C. Barth, S. Peng, > H. Bidgoli > WG Chair(s) : Julien Meuric, Dhruv Dhody > Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter Van de Velde > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
