Hi Megan,
Many thanks for your efforts.
Please see inline.
Original
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
To: 肖敏10093570;彭少富10053815;[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]>;
Date:
2025年10月21日 11:20
Subject: Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9884
<draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-path-sid-13> for your review
Authors and *AD,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the
following questions, which are also in the source file.
1) <!--[rfced] Please note that we have updated the title as follows (to
include articles).
Original Document Title:
Label Switched Path Ping for Segment Routing Path Segment Identifier
with MPLS Data Plane
Current:
A Label Switched Path Ping for the Segment Routing Path Segment Identifier
with an MPLS Data Plane
-->
[XM]>>> I prefer to remain the original document title as is, because we
already have RFCs as below.
RFC 8287: Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR)
IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data Planes
RFC 9703: Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR)
Egress Peer Engineering (EPE) Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data Plane
2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
[XM]>>> Target FEC Stack, PSID.
3) <!--[rfced] Please review the use of the two citations in the sentence
below. RFC 8029 is "Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switched
(MPLS) Data-Plane Failures" while RFC 8287 is "Label Switched
Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix
and IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data
Planes".
Original:
Procedure for LSP Ping [RFC8029] as defined in Section 7.4 of
[RFC8287] is also applicable to PSID, and this document appends
existing step 4a with a new step 4b specific to PSID.
-->
[XM]>>> That's fine. RFC 8029 is the base spec for LSP Ping, which is extended
by both RFC 8287 and this document for SR scenarios.
4) <!--[rfced] *ADs - Please confirm that no "Updates" relationship to
RFC 8287 should be indicated in the header/Abstract/metadata of the
document with the following text (and all of Section 4.1) in
mind:
Original:
Procedure for LSP Ping [RFC8029] as defined in Section 7.4 of
[RFC8287] is also applicable to PSID, and this document appends
existing step 4a with a new step 4b specific to PSID.
-->
5) <!--[rfced] Please review our following update and let us know any
objections.
Original:
As specified in Section 2 of [RFC9545], a PSID is used to identify a
segment list, some or all segment lists in a Candidate path or an SR
policy, so six different Target FEC Stack sub-TLVs need to be defined
for PSID.
Current:
As specified in Section 2 of [RFC9545], a PSID is used to identify a
segment list and/or some or all segment lists in a Candidate path or an SR
policy, so six different Target FEC Stack sub-TLVs need to be defined
for PSID.
-->
[XM]>>> Here "a segment list" is also in a Candidate path or an SR policy, so
"and/or" seems inappropriate.
6) <!--[rfced] Please review the following uses of "PSID FEC Stack
sub-TLV" and "malformed FEC Stack sub-TLV". Other uses of "FEC
Stack sub-TLV" begin with "Target".
Original:
....validity checks on the content of the PSID FEC Stack sub-TLV.
and
If a malformed FEC Stack sub-TLV is received...
Perhaps:
....validity checks on the content of the PSID Target FEC Stack sub-TLV.
and
If a malformed Target FEC Stack sub-TLV is received...
[XM]>>> OK.
-->
7) <!--[rfced] Please confirm that the following are the general concepts
and not field names (note that these are examples, more instances
occur):
Original:
* Validate that the signaled or provisioned headend, color,
and endpoint, for the PSID, matches with the corresponding
fields in the received SR Policy Associated PSID - IPv4 sub-
TLV.
Perhaps:
* Validate that the signaled or provisioned Headend, Color,
and Endpoint fields for the PSID match with the corresponding
fields in the received SR Policy Associated PSID - IPv4 sub-TLV.
Original:
* Validate that the signaled or provisioned headend, color,
endpoint, originator, and discriminator, for the PSID,
matches with the corresponding fields in the received SR
Candidate Path Associated PSID - IPv4 sub-TLV.
Perhaps:
* Validate that the signaled or provisioned Headend, Color,
Endpoint, Originator, and Discriminator fields for the PSID
match with the corresponding fields in the received SR
Candidate Path Associated PSID - IPv4 sub-TLV.
[XM]>>> They are the general concepts and not field names, so no changes
needed.
-->
8) <!--[rfced] Please note that we have updated the reference to
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-17 to point to the RFC-to-be: as
this I-D is currently in AUTH48 (with nearly all approvals
complete), we assume it will move to publication prior to the
publication of this document.
Please let us know how you would like to proceed if RFC-to-be 9857 is
not published before this document (i.e., return to the I-D form of
the reference or wait for the publication of 9857). -->
[XM]>>> Return to the I-D form of the reference.
9) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions/comments related to
abbreviation use throughout the document:
a) Please note that abbreviations have been expanded upon first use. Please
review and confirm all expansions inserted appear as desired.
[XM]>>> OK.
b) Please note that we will update to use the following abbreviations, instead
of their expanded forms, after the first use in accordance with
https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#exp_abbrev:
SR
PSID
[XM]>>> OK.
-->
10) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions related to terminology used
throughout the document:
a) We see mixed use of the following forms. Please let us know if/how these
should be made consistent.
SR path vs. SR Path
segment-list vs. Segment List vs. segment list
candidate path vs. Candidate Path vs. Candidate path
[XM]>>> In my opinion it's not necessary to make them consistent, because the
contexts are different.
b) Is Return Subcode <RSC> the same as "return code"? Please review
and advise if these should be made uniform.
[XM]>>> No, they're different. Both of them are defined in RFC 8029.
-->
11) <!-- [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.
-->
[XM]>>> No issues found.
[XM]>>> I propose five editorial changes as below.
Section #2.2
OLD:
(Section 5.2 of [PCE-MULTIPATH])
NEW:
(Section 4.2 of [PCE-MULTIPATH])
Section #3.4
OLD:
as an SR Policy Associated PSID - IPv6 Sub-TLV
NEW:
as an SR Policy Associated PSID - IPv6 sub-TLV
Section #4
OLD:
receive an echo request and sends an echo reply
NEW:
receive an echo request and send an echo reply
Section #4.1
OLD:
(the notation <RSC> refers to the Return Subcode)
COMMENT:
the same text appears twice, please delete the second one
Section #4.1
OLD:
and segment-list-id, for the PSID
NEW:
and segment-list-id for the PSID
Cheers,
Xiao Min
Thank you.
Megan Ferguson
RFC Production Center
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2025/10/20
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/rfc9884.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9884.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9884.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9884.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9884-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9884-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9884-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9884
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC9884 (draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-path-sid-13)
Title : Label Switched Path Ping for Segment Routing Path Segment
Identifier with MPLS Data Plane
Author(s) : X. Min, S. Peng, L. Gong, R. Gandhi, C. Pignataro
WG Chair(s) : Tarek Saad, Tony Li, Adrian Farrel
Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter Van de Velde--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
