Hi Megan,
Thank you for the update. Your new text looks good to me.
Following the text change, I propose two more editorial changes as below.
OLD:
When a PSID is used to identify a Segment List, the Target FEC
NEW:
When a PSID is used to identify a single segment list, the Target FEC
OLD:
When a PSID is used to identify some segment lists in a Candidate path or an SR
policy, the Target FEC
NEW:
When a PSID is used to identify some segment lists in a candidate path or an SR
policy, the Target FEC
Cheers,
Xiao Min
Original
From: MeganFerguson <[email protected]>
To: 肖敏10093570;
Cc: RFC Editor
<[email protected]>;彭少富10053815;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;James Guichard
<[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;
Date:
2025年10月24日 00:59
Subject: Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9884
<draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-path-sid-13> for your review
Hi Xiao Min,
Your list was really helpful in explaining your intent — thank you! Perhaps
using something similar in the text would be most clear to readers? What do
you think about using the following?
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
the following:
* a single segment list, some segment lists, or all segment lists in
a candidate path of an SR policy,
* some segment lists across multiple candidate paths of an SR
policy, or
* all segment lists in all candidate paths of an SR policy.
Therefore, six different Target FEC Stack sub-TLVs need to be defined
for PSID.
If you’d prefer something else, please let us know. We’ve included the above
in the files posted. Please review the files carefully as we do not make
changes after publication.
The files have been posted here (please refresh):
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9884.txt
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9884.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9884.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9884.xml
The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh):
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9884-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9884-rfcdiff.html (comprehensive side
by side)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9884-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes
only)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9884-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 side by
side)
The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9884
Thank you.
Megan Ferguson
RFC Production Center
> On Oct 22, 2025, at 8:01 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> Hi Megan,
>
> Thank you for the prompt response.
> Please see inline.
> Original
> From: MeganFerguson <[email protected]>
> To: 肖敏10093570;
> Cc: RFC Editor
> <[email protected]>;彭少富10053815;[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]>;
> Date: 2025年10月23日 09:24
> Subject: Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9884
> <draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-path-sid-13> for your review
> Xiao Min,
>
> Thanks for pointing this out.
>
> We have incorporated this change into the existing files. Please note that
> we added a further comma to the original to make a list of three (i.e., a
> PSID identifies 1) a segment list, 2) some or all segment lists in a
> Candidate path, or 3) an SR policy). Please confirm that this is your
> intended meaning. Please also confirm that Candidate path (and not Candidate
> Path) is correct here.
> [XM]>>> If the original text is deemed not clear enough, then I propose to
> change the text as below.
> OLD:
> a PSID is used to identify a segment list, some or all segment lists in a
> Candidate path or an SR policy,
> NEW:
> a PSID is used to identify a segment list, some segment lists, or all segment
> lists, in a candidate path or an SR policy,
> The intended meaning is to cover a list of five as follows:
> * a segment list in a candidate path of an SR policy
> * some segment lists in a candidate path of an SR policy
> * all segment lists in a candidate path of an SR policy
> * some segment lists across multiple candidate paths of an SR policy
> * all segment lists in all candidate paths of an SR policy
> Also note that in the NEW text "candidate path" is used to substitute
> "Candidate path".
>
> Cheers,
> Xiao Min
>
> Please review the files carefully as we do not make changes after publication.
>
> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9884.txt
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9884.pdf
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9884.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9884.xml
>
> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh):
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9884-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9884-rfcdiff.html (comprehensive
> side by side)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9884-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes
> only)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9884-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 side
> by side)
>
> The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here:
>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9884
>
> Thank you.
>
> Megan Ferguson
> RFC Production Center
>
> > On Oct 21, 2025, at 9:43 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > Hi Megan,
> >
> > Thank you for the update.
> > Just one point I might be not clear enough in my response. Copy it here.
> > > 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.
> > My thought was that I prefer to remain the original text as is.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Xiao Min
> > Original
> > From: MeganFerguson <[email protected]>
> > To: 肖敏10093570;
> > Cc: RFC Editor
> > <[email protected]>;彭少富10053815;[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]>;
> > Date: 2025年10月22日 09:44
> > Subject: Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9884
> > <draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-path-sid-13> for your review
> > Hi Xiao Min,
> >
> > Thank you for your guidance and careful review. (Thanks to James, Adrian,
> > and Carlos for your replies as well!)
> >
> > We have updated accordingly.
> >
> > Please review the files carefully as we do not make changes after
> > publication.
> >
> > The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9884.txt
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9884.pdf
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9884.html
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9884.xml
> >
> > The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh):
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9884-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9884-rfcdiff.html (comprehensive
> > side by side)
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9884-auth48diff.html (AUTH48
> > changes only)
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9884-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48
> > side by side)
> >
> > Please contact us with any further updates/questions/comments you may have.
> >
> >
> > We will await approvals from each of the parties listed on the AUTH48
> > status page prior to moving forward to publication.
> >
> > The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here:
> >
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9884
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > RFC Editor/mf
> >
> > > On Oct 21, 2025, at 5:35 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> > >
> > > 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]
