Please find our responses inline.
Thanks,
Chandra.
Juniper Business Use Only
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>
> Sent: Friday, December 20, 2024 6:19 AM
> To: Chandrasekar Ramachandran <cse...@juniper.net>; ts...@cisco.com;
> inami...@google.com; dante.j.pace...@verizon.com
> Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org; mpls-...@ietf.org; mpls-cha...@ietf.org;
> n.leym...@telekom.de; james.n.guich...@futurewei.com;
> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9705 <draft-ietf-mpls-ri-rsvp-frr-22> for your
> review
>
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>
>
> Authors,
>
> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary)
> the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>
> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please review the following questions and changes regarding
> this document's title:
>
> a) FYI - Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC
> Style Guide").
>
> b) Should "RSVP" be added to the title for consistency with the rest of the
> document and the abbreviated title?
>
> Original:
> Refresh-interval Independent FRR Facility Protection
>
> Current:
> Refresh-Interval Independent Fast Reroute (FRR) Facility Protection
>
> Perhaps:
> Refresh-Interval Independent RSVP Fast Reroute (RI-RSVP-FRR) Facility
> Protection
>
> -->
[CR] To keep the name consistent with RFC 4090 and RFC 8370, it can be RSVP-TE.
NEW:
Refresh-Interval Independent RSVP-TE Fast Reroute Facility Protection
>
>
> 2) <!-- [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__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FM2VL8WYKZ4l-zDnXFEMT1bMvVmTs-
> E1_Al7pzTrypczYwOa9zufdnM4Qo4xmCWUhUKQDOal5wQIaaUoCPHz-SQ$ . -
> ->
[CR] "ri-rsvp-frr" - both upper and lower cases
>
>
> 3) <!-- [rfced] Should the first bullet be separated into two separate bullets
> because it contains two separate problems?
>
> Original:
> The use of Refresh messages to
> cover many possible failures has resulted in a number of operational
> problems.
>
> - One problem relates to RSVP control plane scaling due to periodic
> refreshes of Path and Resv messages, another relates to the
> reliability and latency of RSVP signaling.
>
> - An additional problem is the time to clean up the stale state
> after a tear message is lost. For more on these problems see
> Section 1 of RSVP Refresh Overhead Reduction Extensions [RFC2961].
>
> Perhaps:
> The use of Refresh messages to
> cover many possible failures has resulted in a number of operational
> problems.
>
> * One problem relates to RSVP control plane scaling due to periodic
> refreshes of Path and Resv messages
>
> * Another problem relates to the relates to the reliability and latency of
> RSVP signaling. reliability and latency of RSVP signaling.
>
> * An additional problem is the time to clean up the stale state
> after a tear message is lost. For more on these problems see
> Section 1 of [RFC2961].
>
> -->
[CR] The authors are fine with the proposed text.
>
>
> 4) <!--[rfced] To clarify this document's relation to [RFC2961], may we update
> this sentence as follows?
>
> Original:
> Therefore, this document makes support for [RFC2961] a pre-requisite.
>
> Perhaps:
> Therefore, [RFC2961] is a prerequisite for this document.
> -->
[CR] The authors are fine with the proposed text.
>
>
> 5) <!-- [rfced] Please review the following questions and changes regarding
> Section 2 ("Terminology").
>
> a) The terminology list contains a mixture of both abbreviations and
> definitions. For consistency and readability, may we separate definitions and
> abbreviations into two different lists?
>
> b) May we update some list items for a more accurate and 1:1 relationship
> between an abbreviation and its expansion? Please see examples in the
> "Perhaps" text below.
>
> c) In addition, the format of some definition items may suggest that "router"
> and "node" can be used interchangeably (see some examples below). Please
> review and confirm if this is accurate. May we update the terms as suggested
> below?
>
> Originals:
>
> Phop node: Previous-hop router along the label switched path
>
> MP: Merge Point router as defined in [RFC4090]
>
> LP-MP node: Merge Point router at the tail of Link-Protecting bypass tunnel
>
> Perhaps (a few examples):
>
> PHOP: Previous-Hop (can refer to a router or node along the LSP)
>
> MP: Merge Point (can refer to a router as defined in [RFC4090])
>
> LP-MP: Link-Protecting Merge Point (can refer to a router or node at the
> tail of a Link-Protecting bypass tunnel)
>
> d) FYI - We have added expansions for Path State Block (PSB) and Reservation
> State Block (RSB) to this terminology list to avoid expanding them inside of
> the definition of "LSP state". Please review and let us know if there are
> additional abbreviations or terminology used in this document (such as LSP,
> FRR, etc.) that you would like to add to this terminology list.
>
> -->
[CR] All proposed changes to Terminology Section look good.
>
>
> 6) <!-- [rfced] How may we update "has been configured to be long of the
> order of minutes" for clarity?
>
> Original:
> Assume that refresh interval has been configured to be long of the order of
> minutes and refresh reduction extensions are enabled on all routers.
>
> Perhaps:
> Assume that refresh interval has been configured to be as long as the order
> of minutes and that refresh reduction extensions are enabled on all
> routers.
> -->
[CR] The authors are fine with the proposed text.
>
>
> 7) <!-- [rfced] How may we update this section title to avoid using an RFC
> number as an adjective?
>
> Original:
>
> 4.1. Requirement on RFC 4090 Capable Node to advertise RI-RSVP
> Capability
>
> Perhaps (remove RFC number):
>
> 4.1. Requirement for Capable Nodes to Advertise the RI-RSVP Capability
>
> Perhaps (keep RFC number):
>
> 4.1. Requirement for Capable Nodes from RFC 4090 to Advertise the
> RI-RSVP Capability
> -->
[CR] Both the changes proposed does not convey that the specific requirement in
the section is for 4090 capable nodes.
Does the following look better?
NEW:
4.1. Requirement for RFC 4090 Capable Nodes to Advertise the RI-RSVP Capability
>
>
> 8) <!-- [rfced] Can the second sentence in the text below be made more
> concise, as it mostly contains repeated information from the previous
> sentence?
>
> Original:
>
> - The PLR MUST also include its router ID in a Node-ID sub-object in
> RRO object carried in any subsequent Path message corresponding to
> the LSP. While including its router ID in the Node-ID sub-object
> carried in the outgoing Path message, the PLR MUST include the
> Node-ID sub-object after including its IPv4/IPv6 address or
> unnumbered interface ID sub-object.
>
> Perhaps:
>
> * The PLR MUST also include its router ID in a Node-ID sub-object in
> the RRO object that is carried in any subsequent Path message
> corresponding to the LSP. While doing so, the PLR
> MUST include the Node-ID sub-object after including its IPv4/IPv6
> address or unnumbered interface ID sub-object.
> -->
[CR] The authors are fine with the proposed text.
>
>
> 9) <!-- [rfced] May we update the text below to improve readability? In
> particular, how may we clarify what the MP "sets" the I-bit to?
>
> Original:
>
> If the MP has set the I-bit in the CAPABILITY object [RFC8370] carried
> in Hello message corresponding to the Node-ID based Hello session, then
> the PLR MUST conclude that the MP supports refresh- interval
> independent
> FRR procedures defined in this document.
>
> Perhaps:
>
> The PLR MUST conclude that the MP
> supports the refresh-interval independent FRR procedures defined in
> this document if the MP has set the I-bit in the CAPABILITY object
> [RFC8370] (carried in the Hello message) to correspond with the Node-
> ID-based Hello session.
> -->
[CR] As the text above only applies to the I-bit in the CAPABILITY object
carried in the Hello message corresponding to the Node-ID based hello session,
the following text will be the correct one.
NEW:
The PLR MUST conclude that the MP
supports the refresh-interval independent FRR procedures defined in
this document if the MP has set the I-bit in the CAPABILITY object
[RFC8370] carried in the Hello message corresponding to the Node-
ID-based Hello session.
>
>
> 10) <!-- [rfced] FYI - There are a number of instances throughout the
> document where we have updated text to be formatted as a bulleted list to
> improve readability.
> Please review these instances and let us know of any objections.
> -->
[CR] Most changes are good except for the ones listed below.
(CR-i) Abstract
OLD: Facility backup method allows one or more LSPs
PROPOSED: Facility backup methods allow one or more LSPs
"Facility backup" is a mechanism defined by RFC 4090 and so plural should not
be used for that.
OLD: The many-to-one nature of local repair technique
PROPOSED: The many-to-one nature of local repair techniques
Same as the previous comment on "facility backup" method.
OLD: timeout and hence make facility backup method
PROPOSED: timeout, hence, making facility backup methods
It should be "facility backup method".
(CR-ii) 4. Solution Aspects
OLD: introduce PLR and MP procedures to establish Node-ID based hello session
between
PROPOSED: introduce PLR and MP procedures to establish Node-ID-based Hello
sessions between
There will be only one node-id based Hello session between a PLR and MP pair.
(CR-iii) 4.4. Conditional PathTear
OLD:
In the example provided in Section 4.3.3 of this document, B deletes
the PSB and RSB states corresponding to the LSP once B detects its
Phop link went down as B is not an MP.
PROPOSED:
In the example provided in Section 4.3.3 of this document, B deletes
the PSB and RSB states corresponding to the LSP once B detects its
Phop link that went down as B is not an MP.
Instead of adding "that", should the text be the following?
CR-NEW:
In the example provided in Section 4.3.3 of this document, B deletes
the PSB and RSB states corresponding to the LSP once B detects its
Phop link has gone down as B is not an MP.
>
>
> 11) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have updated the text as follows to improve
> readability.
> Please let us know of any objections or if any further updates are needed.
>
> Original:
>
> Now when A-B link fails, as B is not an
> MP and its Phop link has failed, B will delete the LSP state (this
> behavior is required for unprotected LSPs - refer to Section 4.3.1 of
> this document).
>
> Current:
>
> Now, when the A-B link fails, B will delete the LSP state, because B is not
> an MP and its Phop link has failed (this behavior is required for
> unprotected LSPs; refer to Section 4.3.1 of this document).
>
> -->
[CR] The authors are fine with the proposed text.
>
>
> 12) <!-- [rfced] As all other fields are defined following Figure 2, should
> the
> Length field also have an entry?
>
> Current:
> 0 1 2 3
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> | Length | Class | C-type |
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> | Flags (Reserved) |M|
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
> Figure 2: CONDITIONS Object
>
> Class: 135
> C-type: 1
> Flags: 32 bit field
> M: Bit 31 is the Merge-point condition (M) bit. If the M bit is set
> to 1, then the PathTear message MUST be processed according to the
> receiver router role, i.e., if the receiving router is an MP or
> not for the LSP. If it is not set, then the PathTear message MUST
> be processed as a normal PathTear message for the LSP.
>
> -->
[CR] The authors are fine with the proposed text. Length need not be explicitly
defined because it is the same for all RSVP objects.
>
>
> 13) <!-- [rfced] May we provide additional context or lead-in text for the
> list
> below?
>
> Original:
>
> Consider that B-C link goes down on the same example topology
> (Figure 1). As C is the NP-MP for the PLR A, C will retain LSP
> state.
>
> 1. The LSP is preempted on C.
>
> 2. C will delete the RSB state...
>
> Perhaps:
>
> Consider that the B-C link goes down on the same example topology
> (Figure 1). As C is the NP-MP for the PLR A, C will retain LSP
> state. This means:
>
> 1. The LSP is preempted on C.
>
> 2. C will delete the RSB state...
>
> -->
[CR] The inclusion of "This means:" will not convey the intended meaning here.
The first paragraph starting with "If an LSP is preempted on an NP-MP after its
Phop link..." specifies the behavior in general upon an event, and the rest of
the Section 4.5.3.2 intends to convey what will happen in the event of
preemption in a specific condition.
>
>
> 14) <!-- [rfced] To reflect usage in RFC 8370, may we update 'the flag
> "Refresh
> interval Independent RSVP" or RI-RSVP flag' below as follows?
>
> Original:
>
> An implementation supporting RI-RSVP-FRR extensions MUST set the flag
> "Refresh interval Independent RSVP" or RI-RSVP flag in the CAPABILITY
> object carried in Hello messages as specified in RSVP-TE Scaling
> Techniques [RFC8370].
>
> Perhaps:
>
> An implementation supporting RI-RSVP-FRR extensions MUST set the RI-
> RSVP
> Capable flag in the CAPABILITY object carried in Hello messages as
> specified in RSVP-TE Scaling Techniques [RFC8370].
> -->
[CR] The authors are fine with the proposed text.
>
>
> 15) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have updated the following text to match similar
> introductory text from the previous section.
>
> Original:
>
> The procedures are as follows.
>
> Current:
>
> The procedures on the upstream direction are as follows:
>
> -->
[CR] The authors are fine with the proposed text.
>
>
> 16) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, may we update the text below as follows?
>
> Original:
>
> So, the implementations
> SHOULD provide the option to configure Node-ID neighbor specific or
> global authentication key to authentication messages received from
> Node-ID neighbors.
>
> Perhaps:
>
> Therefore, the implementations SHOULD provide the option to configure
> either a
> specific neighbor or global Node-ID authentication key to authentication
> messages received from Node-ID neighbors.
>
> -->
[CR] The authors are fine with the proposed text.
>
>
> 17) <!-- [rfced] Please review the following questions and changes regarding
> the terminology used in this document.
>
> a) We note some instances where "RSVP" is not included in "Refresh-Interval
> Independent FRR" (in the document title and elsewhere). For consistency,
> should "RSVP" be added to these instances? Some examples are listed below.
>
> Original:
> 4.6.1. Detecting Support for Refresh interval Independent FRR
> ...
> "Refresh interval Independent FRR" or RI-RSVP-FRR refers to the set
> of procedures defined in this document to...
>
> Perhaps:
> 4.6.1. Detecting Support for Refresh-Interval Independent RSVP FRR
> ...
> "Refresh-Interval Independent RSVP FRR", or RI-RSVP-FRR, refers to the set
> of procedures defined in this document to...
>
[CR] The proposed changes look good with the proviso related to "RSVP-TE" in
place of RSVP (see the response to comment #1 earlier).
>
> b) To parallel usage in RFC 4090, may we update the capitalization of the
> terms below throughout this document?
>
> Phop > PHOP
> PPhop > PPHOP
> Nhop > NHOP
> NNhop > NNHOP
>
[CR] The proposed changes above look good.
>
> c) To parallel usage in RFC 8796, may we update the capitalization of the
> terms below throughout this document?
>
> Association source > Association Source B-SFRR-Ready Extended Association
> object > B-SFRR-Ready Extended ASSOCIATION object
>
[CR] The proposed changes above look good.
>
> d) Should instances of "RRO object" and "LSP path" be updated to simply read
> "RRO" and "LSP" to avoid redundancy? If expanded, "RRO object" would read
> as "Record Route Object object" and "LSP path" would read as "Label
> Switched Path path". Please review and let us know if any updates are
> needed.
> -->
[CR] The proposed changes to "RRO object" and "LSP path" look good except for
the following text in Section 4.5.3.2. The word "path" in this text refers to
the "path message" and not the "label switched path".
4. B starts backup LSP signaling to D. But However, as D does not have
the LSP state, it will reject the backup LSP Path and send a
PathErr to B.
>
>
> 18) <!-- [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!!NEt6yMaO-
> gk!FM2VL8WYKZ4l-zDnXFEMT1bMvVmTs-
> E1_Al7pzTrypczYwOa9zufdnM4Qo4xmCWUhUKQDOal5wQIaaUoKz17HEE$ >
> 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. -->
>
[CR] The authors have taken into consideration this aspect of the language from
the initial versions.
>
> Thank you.
>
> RFC Editor/kf/ap
>
>
> On Dec 19, 2024, at 4:28 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote:
>
> *****IMPORTANT*****
>
> Updated 2024/12/19
>
> 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/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FM2VL8WYKZ4l-zDnXFEMT1bMvVmTs-
> E1_Al7pzTrypczYwOa9zufdnM4Qo4xmCWUhUKQDOal5wQIaaUo6-bby7o$ ).
>
> 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__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FM2VL8WYKZ4l-zDnXFEMT1bMvVmTs-
> E1_Al7pzTrypczYwOa9zufdnM4Qo4xmCWUhUKQDOal5wQIaaUoFmg6l-Q$ ).
>
> * 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__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FM2VL8WYKZ4l-zDnXFEMT1bMvVmTs-
> E1_Al7pzTrypczYwOa9zufdnM4Qo4xmCWUhUKQDOal5wQIaaUoYWySWiY$
> >.
>
> * 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
>
> * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (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).
>
> * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, 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-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FM2VL8WYKZ4l-
> zDnXFEMT1bMvVmTs-
> E1_Al7pzTrypczYwOa9zufdnM4Qo4xmCWUhUKQDOal5wQIaaUo4FQ8Jic$
>
> * The archive itself:
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48
> archive/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FM2VL8WYKZ4l-zDnXFEMT1bMvVmTs-
> E1_Al7pzTrypczYwOa9zufdnM4Qo4xmCWUhUKQDOal5wQIaaUoRVSHF7c$
>
> * 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,
> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org 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/rfc9705.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FM2VL8WYKZ4l-
> zDnXFEMT1bMvVmTs-
> E1_Al7pzTrypczYwOa9zufdnM4Qo4xmCWUhUKQDOal5wQIaaUoSDoXJMg$
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-
> editor.org/authors/rfc9705.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FM2VL8WYKZ4l-
> zDnXFEMT1bMvVmTs-
> E1_Al7pzTrypczYwOa9zufdnM4Qo4xmCWUhUKQDOal5wQIaaUoWcC58ZM$
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-
> editor.org/authors/rfc9705.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FM2VL8WYKZ4l-
> zDnXFEMT1bMvVmTs-
> E1_Al7pzTrypczYwOa9zufdnM4Qo4xmCWUhUKQDOal5wQIaaUoVgwnY_M$
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-
> editor.org/authors/rfc9705.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FM2VL8WYKZ4l-
> zDnXFEMT1bMvVmTs-
> E1_Al7pzTrypczYwOa9zufdnM4Qo4xmCWUhUKQDOal5wQIaaUocJFXiaA$
>
> Diff file of the text:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9705-
> diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FM2VL8WYKZ4l-zDnXFEMT1bMvVmTs-
> E1_Al7pzTrypczYwOa9zufdnM4Qo4xmCWUhUKQDOal5wQIaaUoJUHhmJY$
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9705-
> rfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FM2VL8WYKZ4l-zDnXFEMT1bMvVmTs-
> E1_Al7pzTrypczYwOa9zufdnM4Qo4xmCWUhUKQDOal5wQIaaUoLiVrrDQ$
> (side by side)
>
> Diff of the XML:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9705-
> xmldiff1.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FM2VL8WYKZ4l-zDnXFEMT1bMvVmTs-
> E1_Al7pzTrypczYwOa9zufdnM4Qo4xmCWUhUKQDOal5wQIaaUoHvtwQhI$
>
>
> Tracking progress
> -----------------
>
> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-
> editor.org/auth48/rfc9705__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FM2VL8WYKZ4l-
> zDnXFEMT1bMvVmTs-
> E1_Al7pzTrypczYwOa9zufdnM4Qo4xmCWUhUKQDOal5wQIaaUoJm6CZos$
>
> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>
> Thank you for your cooperation,
>
> RFC Editor
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC9705 (draft-ietf-mpls-ri-rsvp-frr-22)
>
> Title : Refresh-interval Independent FRR Facility Protection
> Author(s) : C. Ramachandran, T. Saad, I. Minei, D. Pacella
> WG Chair(s) : Nicolai Leymann, Tarek Saad, Tony Li
>
> Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, John Scudder, Gunter Van de Velde
>
--
auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
