Greetings all, Thanks for the updates, Sabrina! They look great.
We have now received all necessary approvals and will move this document forward in the publication process at this time. The AUTH48 status page of this document is available at http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9862. Thank you all for your time and attention during AUTH48. All best, Kaelin Foody RFC Production Center > On Oct 21, 2025, at 7:51 PM, Sabrina Tanamal via RT <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Kaelin, > > These changes are complete: > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep > > Thanks, > Sabrina > > On Tue Oct 21 21:12:14 2025, [email protected] wrote: >> IANA, >> >> Please make the following updates to the "Path Computation Element >> Protocol (PCEP) Numbers” registry at >> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml>. >> >> >> 1.) Please add “TLV" to the item below in >> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-error-object>. >> >> OLD: >> 10 Reception of an invalid object >> 44: Missing SRPOLICY-CAPABILITY >> >> NEW: >> 10 Reception of an invalid object >> 44: Missing SRPOLICY-CAPABILITY TLV >> >> >> 2.) Please update these two items as follows at these registries: >> >> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#sr-policy- >> invalidation-operational-flags> >> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#sr-policy- >> invalidation-configuration-flags> >> >> OLD: >> 7 D: dropping - the LSP is currently attracting traffic and actively >> dropping it. >> >> 7 D: drop enabled - the Drop-upon-invalid is enabled on the LSP. >> >> NEW: >> 7 D: Dropping - the LSP is actively dropping traffic as a result of >> Drop-Upon-Invalid behavior being activated. >> >> 7 D: Drop enabled - the Candidate Path has Drop-Upon-Invalid feature >> enabled. >> >> >> 3.) Please lowercase the “f” in “Flag” for the following items at >> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#sr-policy- >> capability-tlv-flag-field>. >> >> OLD: >> 27 Stateless Operation (L-Flag) >> 29 Invalidation (I-Flag) >> 30 Explicit NULL Label Policy (E-Flag) >> >> NEW: >> 27 Stateless Operation (L-flag) >> 29 Invalidation (I-flag) >> 30 Explicit NULL Label Policy (E-flag) >> >> >> Thank you! >> >> Kaelin Foody >> RFC Production Center >> >>> On Oct 21, 2025, at 1:45 PM, Hooman Bidgoli (Nokia) >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Sorry for delay >>> >>> Approved >>> >>> Thanks >>> Hooman >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Kaelin Foody <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 9:16 AM >>> To: Colby Barth <[email protected]> >>> Cc: Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) <[email protected]>; Sivabalan, >>> Siva <[email protected]>; Mike Koldychev <[email protected]>; >>> Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[email protected]>; Roman Danyliw >>> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Hooman Bidgoli (Nokia) >>> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Dhruv Dhody >>> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; auth48archive@rfc- >>> editor.org >>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9862 <draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing- >>> policy-cp-27> 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> Colby, Shuping, Siva, Mike, all, >>> >>> Thank you for your approvals! We have marked them on the AUTH48 >>> status page for this document. >>> >>> The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: >>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9862. >>> >>> We now only await Hooman Bidgoli’s approval before moving this >>> document forward in the publication process. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> >>> Kaelin Foody >>> RFC Production Center >>> >>>> On Oct 19, 2025, at 8:32 AM, Colby Barth <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> I approve. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> —Colby >>>> >>>> >>>> Juniper Business Use Only >>>> From: Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) <[email protected]> >>>> Date: Friday, October 17, 2025 at 7:03 AM >>>> To: Sivabalan, Siva <[email protected]>, Mike Koldychev >>>> <[email protected]>, Kaelin Foody <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[email protected]>, Roman Danyliw >>>> <[email protected]>, [email protected] <rfc-editor@rfc- >>>> editor.org>, Colby Barth <[email protected]>, >>>> [email protected] <[email protected]>, pce- >>>> [email protected] <[email protected]>, Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]>, >>>> [email protected] <[email protected]>, auth48archive@rfc- >>>> editor.org <[email protected]> >>>> Subject: RE: [**EXTERNAL**] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9862 <draft-ietf- >>>> pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-27> for your review >>>> >>>> [External Email. Be cautious of content] >>>> >>>> >>>> I approve the publication. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Shuping >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Sivabalan, Siva <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2025 10:44 PM >>>> To: Mike Koldychev <[email protected]>; Kaelin Foody >>>> <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[email protected]>; Roman Danyliw >>>> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; >>>> Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) <[email protected]>; >>>> [email protected]; [email protected]; Dhruv Dhody >>>> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; auth48archive@rfc- >>>> editor.org >>>> Subject: RE: [**EXTERNAL**] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9862 <draft-ietf- >>>> pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-27> for your review >>>> >>>> I approve the publication. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Siva >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Mike Koldychev <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2025 3:03 PM >>>> To: Kaelin Foody <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[email protected]>; Roman Danyliw >>>> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Sivabalan, Siva >>>> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; >>>> [email protected]; [email protected]; Dhruv Dhody >>>> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; auth48archive@rfc- >>>> editor.org >>>> Subject: [**EXTERNAL**] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9862 <draft-ietf-pce- >>>> segment-routing-policy-cp-27> for your review >>>> >>>> Hi Kaelin, >>>> >>>> I approve the publication. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Mike. >>>> >>>> On Thursday, October 9th, 2025 at 9:49 AM, Kaelin Foody >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Authors, >>>>> >>>>> This is a friendly reminder that we await some of your approvals >>>>> regarding this document’s readiness for publication. We will await >>>>> approvals >>>>> from each author listed on the AUTH48 status page prior to moving >>>>> this document forward in the publication process. >>>>> >>>>> The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>> editor.org/auth48/rfc9862__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLW4CdYiQ$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>> >>>>> Upon careful review, please contact us with any further updates or >>>>> with your approval of the document in its current form. >>>>> >>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862.txt__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLUD2iauT$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862.pdf__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLS4fEcvY$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862.html__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLU3OXvQT$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862.xml__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLUR6Qve7$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>> >>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here: >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862- >>>>> auth48diff.html__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLa64r9iz$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>> (AUTH48 changes only) >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862- >>>>> auth48rfcdiff.html__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLStiXoII$ [rfc-editor[.]org] (AUTH >>>>> 48 changes side by side) >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862- >>>>> diff.html__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLWkkQJ2v$ [rfc-editor[.]org] (all >>>>> changes) >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862- >>>>> rfcdiff.html__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLWA0wzhO$ [rfc-editor[.]org] (all >>>>> changes side by side) >>>>> >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> >>>>> Kaelin Foody >>>>> RFC Production Center >>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 3, 2025, at 3:07 PM, Kaelin Foody [email protected] >>>>>> editor.org wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Dhruv, Samuel, all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Dhruv - Thanks for your reply and request. We have condensed the >>>>>> two tables in Section 6.3 into one and removed the duplicate lead- >>>>>> in text. You may view these updates in the diff: >>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862- >>>>>> auth48rfcdiff.html__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLStiXoII$ [rfc-editor[.]org]. >>>>>> >>>>>> Samuel - Thanks for your approval; we have marked it on the AUTH48 >>>>>> status page for this document. >>>>>> >>>>>> We 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>> editor.org/auth48/rfc9862__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLW4CdYiQ$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>> >>>>>> — FILES (please refresh): — >>>>>> >>>>>> The updated files have been posted here: >>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862.txt__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLUD2iauT$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862.pdf__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLS4fEcvY$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862.html__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLU3OXvQT$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862.xml__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLUR6Qve7$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>> >>>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here: >>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862- >>>>>> auth48diff.html__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLa64r9iz$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>> (AUTH48 changes only) >>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862- >>>>>> auth48rfcdiff.html__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLStiXoII$ [rfc-editor[.]org] (AUTH >>>>>> 48 changes side by side) >>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862- >>>>>> diff.html__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLWkkQJ2v$ [rfc-editor[.]org] (all >>>>>> changes) >>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862- >>>>>> rfcdiff.html__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLWA0wzhO$ [rfc-editor[.]org] (all >>>>>> changes side by side) >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for your time, >>>>>> >>>>>> Kaelin Foody >>>>>> RFC Production Center >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Oct 1, 2025, at 12:15 AM, Dhruv Dhody [email protected] wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just one comment on section 6.3 - >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The two tables made sense in the draft as we were giving two >>>>>>> distinct instructions to IANA - (1) to confirm existing >>>>>>> allocations and (2) for new allocations at >>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft- >>>>>>> ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-27*section- >>>>>>> 6.3__;Iw!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLeNs0Nbn$ >>>>>>> [datatracker[.]ietf[.]org] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the published RFC, this distinction does not make sense and I >>>>>>> suggest we can have a single table now at >>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862.html*section- >>>>>>> 6.3__;Iw!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLTLoSiOd$ [rfc-editor[.]org] and >>>>>>> update the initial list accordingly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>> Dhruv >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 10:36 PM Samuel Sidor (ssidor) >>>>>>> [email protected] wrote: >>>>>>> Thanks a lot, Kaelin. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Looks fine to me, so approving from my side. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Samuel >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Kaelin Foody [email protected] >>>>>>> Date: Tuesday, 30 September 2025 at 18:18 >>>>>>> To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) [email protected] >>>>>>> Cc: Roman Danyliw [email protected], [email protected] rfc- >>>>>>> [email protected], [email protected] [email protected], >>>>>>> [email protected] [email protected], [email protected] >>>>>>> [email protected], [email protected] >>>>>>> [email protected], [email protected] >>>>>>> [email protected], [email protected] [email protected], pce- >>>>>>> [email protected] [email protected], [email protected] >>>>>>> [email protected], [email protected] >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9862 <draft-ietf-pce-segment- >>>>>>> routing-policy-cp-27> for your review >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Samuel, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We have updated several instances in Sections 5.1 and 5.2.2 to >>>>>>> "EXPLICIT-NULL-LABEL-POLICY TLV" per your request. Please review >>>>>>> and let us know if any further updates are needed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>> editor.org/auth48/rfc9862__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLW4CdYiQ$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862.txt__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLUD2iauT$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862.pdf__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLS4fEcvY$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862.html__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLU3OXvQT$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862.xml__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLUR6Qve7$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here: >>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862- >>>>>>> auth48diff.html__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLa64r9iz$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>> (AUTH48 changes only) >>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862- >>>>>>> auth48rfcdiff.html__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLStiXoII$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>> (AUTH 48 changes side by side) >>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862- >>>>>>> diff.html__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLWkkQJ2v$ [rfc-editor[.]org] (all >>>>>>> changes) >>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862- >>>>>>> rfcdiff.html__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLWA0wzhO$ [rfc-editor[.]org] (all >>>>>>> changes side by side) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kaelin Foody >>>>>>> RFC Production Center >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sep 30, 2025, at 10:23 AM, Samuel Sidor (ssidor) >>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Kaelin, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks a lot for renaming "Explicit Null Label Policy TLV" to >>>>>>>> "EXPLICIT-NULL-LABEL-POLICY TLV”. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It seems that there are still 3 remaining occurrences of old >>>>>>>> name: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> • Description of E-flag in Section 5.1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> E-flag (Explicit NULL Label Policy): If set to 1 by a PCEP >>>>>>>> speaker, the E-flag indicates that the PCEP speaker supports the >>>>>>>> handling of the Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP) TLV for the SR >>>>>>>> Policy (Section 5.2.2). If this flag is set to 0, then the >>>>>>>> receiving PCEP speaker MUST NOT send the ENLP TLV and MUST >>>>>>>> ignore it on receipt. >>>>>>>> • “Figure 8: Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP) TLV Format” in >>>>>>>> Section 5.2.2 >>>>>>>> • In section 5.2.2 we are referring to ENLP TLV, but since name >>>>>>>> of that TLV was updated, we are not introducing “ENLP TLV” >>>>>>>> anywhere, so I assume that we will need to replace those 2 >>>>>>>> occurrences with complete TLV name. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can we update those as well? Besides that the document looks >>>>>>>> fine to me. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, >>>>>>>> Samuel >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From: Kaelin Foody [email protected] >>>>>>>> Date: Tuesday, 30 September 2025 at 16:02 >>>>>>>> To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) [email protected] >>>>>>>> Cc: Roman Danyliw [email protected], [email protected] rfc- >>>>>>>> [email protected], [email protected] [email protected], >>>>>>>> [email protected] [email protected], [email protected] >>>>>>>> [email protected], [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: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9862 <draft-ietf-pce-segment- >>>>>>>> routing-policy-cp-27> for your review >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Roman - Thank you for your reply and approval. We have marked >>>>>>>> your approval as AD on the AUTH48 status page. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Samuel - Thank you for your response. We have updated 2 >>>>>>>> instances of "Explicit Null Label Policy TLV" to "EXPLICIT-NULL- >>>>>>>> LABEL-POLICY TLV” (in the title of 5.2.2 and one instance in >>>>>>>> Section 5.2.2) to match Table 2. Please review and let us know >>>>>>>> if any further changes are needed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>> editor.org/auth48/rfc9862__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLW4CdYiQ$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862.txt__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLUD2iauT$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862.pdf__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLS4fEcvY$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862.html__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLU3OXvQT$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862.xml__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLUR6Qve7$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here: >>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862- >>>>>>>> auth48diff.html__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLa64r9iz$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>>> (AUTH48 changes only) >>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862- >>>>>>>> auth48rfcdiff.html__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLStiXoII$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>>> (AUTH 48 changes side by side) >>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862- >>>>>>>> diff.html__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLWkkQJ2v$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>>> (all changes) >>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862- >>>>>>>> rfcdiff.html__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLWA0wzhO$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>>> (all changes side by side) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kaelin Foody >>>>>>>> RFC Production Center >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sep 29, 2025, at 4:28 AM, Samuel Sidor (ssidor) >>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Kaelin, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Changes looks great to me. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> One small nit/question: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In Section 5.2.2, section is called “Explicit NULL Label Policy >>>>>>>>> (ENLP) TLV”, but in 6.2.2 we are still calling it “EXPLICIT- >>>>>>>>> NULL-LABEL-POLICY”. Is the intentional? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks a lot, >>>>>>>>> Samuel >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> From: Roman Danyliw [email protected] >>>>>>>>> Date: Saturday, 27 September 2025 at 00:34 >>>>>>>>> To: Kaelin Foody [email protected], Samuel Sidor >>>>>>>>> (ssidor) [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], pce- >>>>>>>>> [email protected] [email protected], [email protected] pce- >>>>>>>>> [email protected], [email protected] [email protected], >>>>>>>>> [email protected] [email protected] >>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9862 <draft-ietf-pce- >>>>>>>>> segment-routing-policy-cp-27> for your review >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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]; pce- >>>>>>>>> [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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862- >>>>>>>>> auth48diff.html__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLa64r9iz$ [rfc-editor[.]org]. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml*sr- >>>>>>>>>> policy- >>>>>>>>>> invalidatio__;Iw!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLdERpoSN$ [iana[.]org] >>>>>>>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml*sr- >>>>>>>>>> policy- >>>>>>>>>> invalidatio__;Iw!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLdERpoSN$ [iana[.]org] >>>>>>>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>> editor.org/auth48/rfc9862__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLW4CdYiQ$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862.txt__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLUD2iauT$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862.pdf__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLS4fEcvY$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862.html__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLU3OXvQT$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862.xml__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLUR6Qve7$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here: >>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862- >>>>>>>>> auth48diff.html__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLa64r9iz$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>>>> (AUTH48 changes only) >>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862- >>>>>>>>> auth48rfcdiff.html__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLStiXoII$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>>>> (AUTH 48 changes side by side) >>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862- >>>>>>>>> diff.html__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLWkkQJ2v$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>>>> (all changes) https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862- >>>>>>>>> rfcdiff.html__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLWA0wzhO$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>>>> (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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>>> editor.org/errata/rfc8231__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLctT8ChH$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>>> editor.org/search__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLQZX0Xaa$ [rfc-editor[.]org]. >>>>>>>>>> —> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml*sr- >>>>>>>>>> policy- >>>>>>>>>> invalidatio__;Iw!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLdERpoSN$ [iana[.]org] >>>>>>>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml*sr- >>>>>>>>>> policy- >>>>>>>>>> invalidatio__;Iw!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLdERpoSN$ [iana[.]org] >>>>>>>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>>> editor.org/rfc/rfc9256.html*name-preference-of-a-candidate- >>>>>>>>>> p__;Iw!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLZ0frfoo$ [rfc-editor[.]org]”. >>>>>>>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml*sr- >>>>>>>>>> policy- >>>>>>>>>> capability__;Iw!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLahEVur-$ [iana[.]org] >>>>>>>>>> -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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>>> editor.org/styleguide/part2/*inclusive_language__;Iw!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLdfYCfBo$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>>> editor.org/faq/__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLRaGma7i$ [rfc-editor[.]org]). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLYFqGt7d$ >>>>>>>>>> [trustee[.]ietf[.]org]). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * 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__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLbWmC-CU$ >>>>>>>>>> [authors[.]ietf[.]org]. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf- >>>>>>>>>> announce/yb6lpIGh- >>>>>>>>>> 4Q9l2USxI__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLRD-rv89$ >>>>>>>>>> [mailarchive[.]ietf[.]org] >>>>>>>>>> Ae6P8O4Zc >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * The archive itself: >>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLYyh_X6J$ >>>>>>>>>> [mailarchive[.]ietf[.]org] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862.xml__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLUR6Qve7$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862.html__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLU3OXvQT$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862.pdf__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLS4fEcvY$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862.txt__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLUD2iauT$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Diff file of the text: >>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862- >>>>>>>>>> diff.html__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLWkkQJ2v$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862- >>>>>>>>>> rfcdiff.html__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLWA0wzhO$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>>>>> (side by >>>>>>>>>> side) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Diff of the XML: >>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862- >>>>>>>>>> xmldiff1.html__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLfWVf5Dv$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Tracking progress >>>>>>>>>> ----------------- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>>> editor.org/auth48/rfc9862__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLW4CdYiQ$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>>> editor.org/errata/rfc8231__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLctT8ChH$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>>> editor.org/search__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLQZX0Xaa$ [rfc-editor[.]org]. >>>>>>>>>> —> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml*sr- >>>>>>>>>> policy- >>>>>>>>>> invalidatio__;Iw!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLdERpoSN$ [iana[.]org] >>>>>>>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml*sr- >>>>>>>>>> policy- >>>>>>>>>> invalidatio__;Iw!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLdERpoSN$ [iana[.]org] >>>>>>>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>>> editor.org/rfc/rfc9256.html*name-preference-of-a-candidate- >>>>>>>>>> p__;Iw!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLZ0frfoo$ [rfc-editor[.]org]”. >>>>>>>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml*sr- >>>>>>>>>> policy- >>>>>>>>>> capability__;Iw!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLahEVur-$ [iana[.]org] >>>>>>>>>> -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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>>> editor.org/styleguide/part2/*inclusive_language__;Iw!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLdfYCfBo$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>>> editor.org/faq/__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLRaGma7i$ [rfc-editor[.]org]). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLYFqGt7d$ >>>>>>>>>> [trustee[.]ietf[.]org]). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * 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__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLbWmC-CU$ >>>>>>>>>> [authors[.]ietf[.]org]. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf- >>>>>>>>>> announce/yb6lpIGh- >>>>>>>>>> 4Q9l2USxI__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLRD-rv89$ >>>>>>>>>> [mailarchive[.]ietf[.]org] >>>>>>>>>> Ae6P8O4Zc >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * The archive itself: >>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLYyh_X6J$ >>>>>>>>>> [mailarchive[.]ietf[.]org] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862.xml__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLUR6Qve7$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862.html__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLU3OXvQT$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862.pdf__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLS4fEcvY$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862.txt__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLUD2iauT$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Diff file of the text: >>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862- >>>>>>>>>> diff.html__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLWkkQJ2v$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862- >>>>>>>>>> rfcdiff.html__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLWA0wzhO$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>>>>> (side by >>>>>>>>>> side) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Diff of the XML: >>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9862- >>>>>>>>>> xmldiff1.html__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLfWVf5Dv$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Tracking progress >>>>>>>>>> ----------------- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>>> editor.org/auth48/rfc9862__;!!OSsGDw!NlhESSVXrTKw5qvdb1_8kSDDztDW2OQGBvNehPQ- >>>>>>>>>> BQiIg069gAuTF_eNSPgoGak-OYgHZC0SLW4CdYiQ$ [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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]
