Hi Kaelin, I approve the publication. Thanks. > From: "Kaelin Foody"<[email protected]> > Date: Sat, Mar 7, 2026, 05:00 > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9947 for your review > To: "Giuseppe Fioccola"<[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]"<[email protected]>, "Tianran > Zhou"<[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]> > Hi Giuseppe, > > Thank you for sending along your responses and an XML file. You may find the > updated files at the end of this email. > > Please reach out with any further updates or with your approval of the > document in its current form. We will await approvals from each party listed > on the AUTH48 status page for this document prior to moving forward in the > publication process. > > Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make > changes once it has been published as an RFC. > > The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9947 > > — FILES (please refresh): — > > The updated files have been posted here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9947.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9947.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9947.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9947.xml > > Diff files showing changes made during AUTH48: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9947-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9947-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff files showing all changes: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9947-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9947-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Thank you, > > Kaelin Foody > RFC Production Center > > > On Mar 4, 2026, at 10:15 AM, Giuseppe Fioccola > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Kaelin, Sandy, > > Please find attached the updated XML file. I have answered to your > > questions and fixed minor nits in section 1.1 and 3.2. I also changed the > > affiliation of two contributors. > > > > Looking forward to hearing from you. > > > > Regards, > > > > Giuseppe > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 6:13 PM > > To: Giuseppe Fioccola <[email protected]>; Tianran Zhou > > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected] > > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9947 <draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark-17> for > > your review > > > > Authors, > > > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) > > the following questions, which are also in the source file. > > > > 1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the > > title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> > > > > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please consider the following with regard to the text > > below. > > > > A) How may we update the instances below to clarify the RFC Editor's role > > in the submission process? We believe the text should refer to the > > Independent Submissions Editor instead. > > > > B) Is the goal to describe the results in an Internet-Draft for discussion > > or for consideration for publication as an RFC, or both? Note that > > Independent Submissions also get posted as Internet-Drafts. > > > > C) May we update "to help forward" to "to help progress" or perhaps "to > > evolve"? > > > > Original: > > Researchers are invited to submit their evaluations of this work to > > the RFC Editor for consideration as independent submissions or to the > > IETF SPRING working group as Internet-Drafts. > > > > ... > > > > The results of this experiment will be collected and shared with the > > RFC Editor for consideration as independent submission or with the > > IETF SPRING working group as Internet-Draft, to help forward the > > discussions that will determine the correct development of Alternate > > Marking Method solutions in SRv6 networks. > > > > > > Perhaps: > > Researchers are invited to submit their evaluations of this work to > > the Independent Submissions Editor or to the IETF SPRING Working Group > > as Internet-Drafts. > > > > ... > > > > The results of this experiment will be collected and shared with the > > Independent Submissions Editor or with the IETF SPRING Working Group > > as Internet-Drafts to help progress the > > discussions that will determine the correct development of Alternate- > > Marking Method solutions in SRv6 networks. > > --> > > > > > > 3) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble parsing "the mechanism to carry." > > Does the mechanism carry the headers? Perhaps this refers to the ability > > to carry Alternate-Marking data? Please clarify. > > > > Original (sentence prior provided for context): > > [RFC9343] defines the > > standard for how the marking field can be encoded in a new TLV in > > either Hop-by-hop or Destination Options Headers of IPv6 packets in > > order to achieve Alternate Marking. The mechanism to carry is > > equally applicable to Segment Routing for IPv6 (SRv6) networks > > [RFC8402]. > > --> > > > > > > 4) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, please consider the following update to > > indicate the purpose of the experiment. > > > > Original: > > As > > also highlighted in [I-D.bonica-gendispatch-exp], when two protocol > > extensions are proposed to solve a single problem, an experiment can > > be initiated and this is the purpose of this document. See Section 5 > > for more details about the experimentation. > > > > Perhaps: > > As > > also highlighted in [IETF-EXPERIMENTS], when two protocol > > extensions are proposed to solve a single problem, an experiment can > > be initiated to gather operational experience and "determine which, > > if either, of the protocols should be progressed to the standards > > track." This is the purpose of this document. See Section 5 > > for more details about the experiment. > > --> > > > > > > 5) <!-- [rfced] May we adjust "it is also allowed" as follows? > > > > Original: > > In addition to the base data fields of [RFC9343], it is also allowed > > the insertion of optional extended data fields which are not present > > in [RFC9343]. > > > > Perhaps: > > In addition to the base data fields of [RFC9343], the insertion of > > optional extended data fields that are not present in [RFC9343] > > are also allowed. > > --> > > > > > > 6) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, please consider the following update. > > > > Original: > > Therefore, the experimentation of the Alternate Marking Method to > > SRv6 MUST be deployed only within a controlled domain. > > > > Perhaps: > > Therefore, the experiment of applying the Alternate-Marking Method to > > SRv6 MUST only be deployed within a controlled domain. > > --> > > > > > > 7) <!-- [rfced] Should "of" be updated to "or" in the text below? > > > > Original: > > Carefully bounding the domain reduces the risk of the experiment > > leaking out and clashing with other experiments of causing unforeseen > > consequences in wider deployments. > > > > Perhaps: > > Carefully bounding the domain reduces the risk of the experiment > > leaking out and clashing with other experiments or causing unforeseen > > consequences in wider deployments. > > > > --> > > > > > > 8) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have adjusted the title of Figure 1 to avoid > > multiple colons. Please review. > > > > Original: > > > > Figure 1: AltMark: SRH TLV for alternate marking > > > > Current: > > > > Figure 1: The AltMark SRH TLV for Alternate Marking > > > > --> > > > > > > 9) <!-- [rfced] "Experimentation of this document" is a bit awkward. > > Perhaps one of the suggested updates below is more clear? > > > > Original: > > Experimentation of this document must coordinate > > the value used by all implementations participating in the > > experiment. > > > > Perhaps A: > > Participants experimenting with applying the Alternate-Marking Method > > to SRH must coordinate the value used. > > > > Perhaps B: > > Deployment of this document must coordinate > > the value used by all implementations participating in the > > experiment. > > > > > > Please consider whether this text may be updated in a similar manner. > > > > Original: > > Experimentation of this document must use a code point chosen from > > the Experimental range, as noted in Section 3, and should make it > > possible for the operator to configure the value used in a deployment > > such that it is possible to conduct multiple non-conflicting > > experiments within the same network. > > > > Perhaps: > > Experiment participants must use a code point ... > > > > --> > > > > > > 10) <!-- [rfced] For readability, please consider the following update. > > > > Original: > > The security requirement of > > controlled domain applies to both this document and [RFC9343], and it > > also confines this duplication to a single service provider networks. > > However, duplication of the same information in different places > > should be avoided and it is recommended to only analyze the use of > > SRH AltMark TLV for the experimentation. > > > > Perhaps: > > Both this document and [RFC9343] require a controlled domain for > > security purposes, which confines this duplication to a > > single service provider network. Duplication of the same > > information in different places should be avoided, and analyzing > > the use of only the SRH AltMark TLV is recommended as part of > > this experiment. > > --> > > > > > > 11) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have updated "comparing the use of" to "compared > > to the use of" in the text below. Please review. > > > > Original: > > Is the forwarding plane performance impacted across different > > device architecture types comparing the use of SRH TLV and > > Destination Option? > > > > Current: > > * Is the forwarding plane performance impacted across different > > device architecture types compared to the use of SRH TLV and > > Destination Option? > > --> > > > > > > 12) <!-- [rfced] Terminology and Abbreviations: > > > > a) For consistency with RFC 9343, we have updated instances of "Alternate > > Marking Method" to appear as "Alternate-Marking Method" throughout. We > > have also hyphenated other instances where "Alternate Marking" is acting as > > an adjective that precedes the nounn. Please let us know any objections. > > > > > > b) We have added "Method" to a few instances of "the Alternate Marking" as > > seen below. Please let us know if any corrections are needed. > > > > Original: > > Section 2 covers the application of the Alternate Marking to SRv6... > > > > Application of the Alternate Marking to SRv6 > > > > > > Current: > > Section 2 covers the application of the Alternate Marking Method to > > SRv6... > > > > Application of the Alternate Marking Method to SRv6 > > > > > > c) We have expanded the following abbreviation upon first use per Section > > 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review and let us know any > > corrections. > > > > Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) > > --> > > > > > > 13) <!-- [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. > > --> > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > Kaelin Foody and Sandy Ginoza > > RFC Production Center > > > > > > > > On Mar 3, 2026, at 9:07 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > > > Updated 2026/03/03 > > > > 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/rfc9947.xml > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9947.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9947.pdf > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9947.txt > > > > Diff file of the text: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9947-diff.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9947-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > > > Diff of the XML: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9947-xmldiff1.html > > > > > > Tracking progress > > ----------------- > > > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9947 > > > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > > > RFC Editor > > > > -------------------------------------- > > RFC9947 (draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark-17) > > > > Title : Application of the Alternate Marking Method to the > > Segment Routing Header > > Author(s) : G. Fioccola, T. Zhou, G. Mishra, X. Wang, G. Zhang, M. > > Cociglio > > WG Chair(s) : > > Area Director(s) : > > > > > > > > <rfc9947 GFv1.xml> >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
