Apologies for the delay. After going through the document, there is only one
comment. Even though we initially agreed to replace "RSVP" with "RSVP-TE" when
referring to "refresh interval independent RSVP", the replacement does not seem
to be apt in the following text. RFC 8370 contains only "RSVP" in all
references to "refresh interval independent RSVP".
The suggestion is to revert to "RSVP" in all the below mentioned locations.
(1)
Section 4.6.1 Detecting Support for Refresh-Interval Independent RSVP-TE FRR
(2)
4.6. Backward Compatibility Procedures
"Refresh-Interval Independent RSVP-TE FRR" and "RI-RSVP-FRR" refer to...
There is no further comment other than the above. Thanks a lot for patient
editing of the document.
Thanks,
Chandra.
Juniper Business Use Only
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alanna Paloma <apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org>
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2025 10:46 PM
> 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]
>
>
> Hi Authors,
>
> Just another friendly reminder that we await your reviews and approvals of
> the updated files prior to moving this document forward in the publication
> process.
>
> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-
> editor.org/authors/rfc9705.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-
> gk!BIe7YDkZ_z42F7AfPJDgue4F-NRoY5-
> AOwQeNwLCrjerW2FvlEIu3MaKz2Wg4UL8zcslM3vJfM1DCq2LBSIvVo9q$
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-
> editor.org/authors/rfc9705.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BIe7YDkZ_z42F7AfPJDgue4F-
> NRoY5-
> AOwQeNwLCrjerW2FvlEIu3MaKz2Wg4UL8zcslM3vJfM1DCq2LBVlFVc53$
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-
> editor.org/authors/rfc9705.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-
> gk!BIe7YDkZ_z42F7AfPJDgue4F-NRoY5-
> AOwQeNwLCrjerW2FvlEIu3MaKz2Wg4UL8zcslM3vJfM1DCq2LBZ8yfAXn$
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-
> editor.org/authors/rfc9705.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-
> gk!BIe7YDkZ_z42F7AfPJDgue4F-NRoY5-
> AOwQeNwLCrjerW2FvlEIu3MaKz2Wg4UL8zcslM3vJfM1DCq2LBdbRCm5z$
>
> The relevant diff files have been posted here:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9705-
> diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BIe7YDkZ_z42F7AfPJDgue4F-NRoY5-
> AOwQeNwLCrjerW2FvlEIu3MaKz2Wg4UL8zcslM3vJfM1DCq2LBUVcWY1X$
> (comprehensive diff) https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-
> editor.org/authors/rfc9705-auth48diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-
> gk!BIe7YDkZ_z42F7AfPJDgue4F-NRoY5-
> AOwQeNwLCrjerW2FvlEIu3MaKz2Wg4UL8zcslM3vJfM1DCq2LBbH6ASEy$
> (AUTH48 changes) https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-
> editor.org/authors/rfc9705-lastdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-
> gk!BIe7YDkZ_z42F7AfPJDgue4F-NRoY5-
> AOwQeNwLCrjerW2FvlEIu3MaKz2Wg4UL8zcslM3vJfM1DCq2LBW0VqTA6$
> (htmlwdiff diff between last version and this)
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9705-
> lastrfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BIe7YDkZ_z42F7AfPJDgue4F-NRoY5-
> AOwQeNwLCrjerW2FvlEIu3MaKz2Wg4UL8zcslM3vJfM1DCq2LBZDQhJ5i$
> (rfcdiff between last version and this)
>
> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-
> editor.org/auth48/rfc9705__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BIe7YDkZ_z42F7AfPJDgue4F-
> NRoY5-
> AOwQeNwLCrjerW2FvlEIu3MaKz2Wg4UL8zcslM3vJfM1DCq2LBfi5wYI2$
>
> Thank you,
> RFC Editor/ap
>
> > On Jan 23, 2025, at 8:30 AM, Alanna Paloma <apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Authors,
> >
> > This is another friendly reminder that we await your reviews and approvals
> of the updated files.
> >
> > The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9705
> > .xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BIe7YDkZ_z42F7AfPJDgue4F-NRoY5-
> AOwQeNwLCrjerW2Fvl
> > EIu3MaKz2Wg4UL8zcslM3vJfM1DCq2LBSIvVo9q$
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9705
> > .txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BIe7YDkZ_z42F7AfPJDgue4F-NRoY5-
> AOwQeNwLCrjerW2Fvl
> > EIu3MaKz2Wg4UL8zcslM3vJfM1DCq2LBVlFVc53$
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9705
> > .html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BIe7YDkZ_z42F7AfPJDgue4F-NRoY5-
> AOwQeNwLCrjerW2Fv
> > lEIu3MaKz2Wg4UL8zcslM3vJfM1DCq2LBZ8yfAXn$
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9705
> > .pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BIe7YDkZ_z42F7AfPJDgue4F-NRoY5-
> AOwQeNwLCrjerW2Fvl
> > EIu3MaKz2Wg4UL8zcslM3vJfM1DCq2LBdbRCm5z$
> >
> > The relevant diff files have been posted here:
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9705
> > -diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BIe7YDkZ_z42F7AfPJDgue4F-NRoY5-
> AOwQeNwLCrje
> > rW2FvlEIu3MaKz2Wg4UL8zcslM3vJfM1DCq2LBUVcWY1X$ (comprehensive
> diff)
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9705
> > -auth48diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BIe7YDkZ_z42F7AfPJDgue4F-NRoY5-
> AOwQeN
> > wLCrjerW2FvlEIu3MaKz2Wg4UL8zcslM3vJfM1DCq2LBbH6ASEy$ (AUTH48
> changes)
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9705
> > -lastdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BIe7YDkZ_z42F7AfPJDgue4F-NRoY5-
> AOwQeNwL
> > CrjerW2FvlEIu3MaKz2Wg4UL8zcslM3vJfM1DCq2LBW0VqTA6$ (htmlwdiff
> diff
> > between last version and this)
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9705
> > -lastrfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BIe7YDkZ_z42F7AfPJDgue4F-NRoY5-
> AOwQe
> > NwLCrjerW2FvlEIu3MaKz2Wg4UL8zcslM3vJfM1DCq2LBZDQhJ5i$ (rfcdiff
> > between last version and this)
> >
> > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9705_
> > _;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BIe7YDkZ_z42F7AfPJDgue4F-NRoY5-
> AOwQeNwLCrjerW2FvlEIu3M
> > aKz2Wg4UL8zcslM3vJfM1DCq2LBfi5wYI2$
> >
> > Thank you,
> > RFC Editor/ap
> >
> >> On Jan 16, 2025, at 12:49 PM, Alanna Paloma <apal...@staff.rfc-
> editor.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Authors,
> >>
> >> This is a friendly reminder that we await your reviews and approvals of the
> updated files.
> >>
> >> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc970
> >> 5.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BIe7YDkZ_z42F7AfPJDgue4F-NRoY5-
> AOwQeNwLCrjerW2F
> >> vlEIu3MaKz2Wg4UL8zcslM3vJfM1DCq2LBSIvVo9q$
> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc970
> >> 5.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BIe7YDkZ_z42F7AfPJDgue4F-NRoY5-
> AOwQeNwLCrjerW2F
> >> vlEIu3MaKz2Wg4UL8zcslM3vJfM1DCq2LBVlFVc53$
> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc970
> >> 5.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BIe7YDkZ_z42F7AfPJDgue4F-NRoY5-
> AOwQeNwLCrjerW2
> >> FvlEIu3MaKz2Wg4UL8zcslM3vJfM1DCq2LBZ8yfAXn$
> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc970
> >> 5.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BIe7YDkZ_z42F7AfPJDgue4F-NRoY5-
> AOwQeNwLCrjerW2F
> >> vlEIu3MaKz2Wg4UL8zcslM3vJfM1DCq2LBdbRCm5z$
> >>
> >> The relevant diff files have been posted here:
> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc970
> >> 5-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BIe7YDkZ_z42F7AfPJDgue4F-NRoY5-
> AOwQeNwLCr
> >> jerW2FvlEIu3MaKz2Wg4UL8zcslM3vJfM1DCq2LBUVcWY1X$
> (comprehensive
> >> diff)
> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc970
> >> 5-auth48diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BIe7YDkZ_z42F7AfPJDgue4F-NRoY5-
> AOwQ
> >> eNwLCrjerW2FvlEIu3MaKz2Wg4UL8zcslM3vJfM1DCq2LBbH6ASEy$
> (AUTH48
> >> changes)
> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc970
> >> 5-lastdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BIe7YDkZ_z42F7AfPJDgue4F-NRoY5-
> AOwQeN
> >> wLCrjerW2FvlEIu3MaKz2Wg4UL8zcslM3vJfM1DCq2LBW0VqTA6$
> (htmlwdiff diff
> >> between last version and this)
> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc970
> >> 5-lastrfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BIe7YDkZ_z42F7AfPJDgue4F-NRoY5-
> AOw
> >> QeNwLCrjerW2FvlEIu3MaKz2Wg4UL8zcslM3vJfM1DCq2LBZDQhJ5i$
> (rfcdiff
> >> between last version and this)
> >>
> >> Once we’ve received all necessary approvals, we will move this document
> forward in the publication process.
> >>
> >> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9705
> >> __;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BIe7YDkZ_z42F7AfPJDgue4F-NRoY5-
> AOwQeNwLCrjerW2FvlEIu
> >> 3MaKz2Wg4UL8zcslM3vJfM1DCq2LBfi5wYI2$
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >> RFC Editor/ap
> >>
> >>> On Jan 9, 2025, at 10:59 AM, Alanna Paloma <apal...@staff.rfc-
> editor.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Chandra,
> >>>
> >>> The files have been updated per your request.
> >>>
> >>> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc97
> >>> 05.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BIe7YDkZ_z42F7AfPJDgue4F-NRoY5-
> AOwQeNwLCrjerW
> >>> 2FvlEIu3MaKz2Wg4UL8zcslM3vJfM1DCq2LBSIvVo9q$
> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc97
> >>> 05.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BIe7YDkZ_z42F7AfPJDgue4F-NRoY5-
> AOwQeNwLCrjerW
> >>> 2FvlEIu3MaKz2Wg4UL8zcslM3vJfM1DCq2LBVlFVc53$
> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc97
> >>> 05.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BIe7YDkZ_z42F7AfPJDgue4F-NRoY5-
> AOwQeNwLCrjer
> >>> W2FvlEIu3MaKz2Wg4UL8zcslM3vJfM1DCq2LBZ8yfAXn$
> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc97
> >>> 05.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BIe7YDkZ_z42F7AfPJDgue4F-NRoY5-
> AOwQeNwLCrjerW
> >>> 2FvlEIu3MaKz2Wg4UL8zcslM3vJfM1DCq2LBdbRCm5z$
> >>>
> >>> The relevant diff files have been posted here:
> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc97
> >>> 05-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BIe7YDkZ_z42F7AfPJDgue4F-NRoY5-
> AOwQeNwL
> >>> CrjerW2FvlEIu3MaKz2Wg4UL8zcslM3vJfM1DCq2LBUVcWY1X$
> (comprehensive
> >>> diff)
> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc97
> >>> 05-auth48diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BIe7YDkZ_z42F7AfPJDgue4F-NRoY5-
> AO
> >>> wQeNwLCrjerW2FvlEIu3MaKz2Wg4UL8zcslM3vJfM1DCq2LBbH6ASEy$
> (AUTH48
> >>> changes)
> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc97
> >>> 05-lastdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BIe7YDkZ_z42F7AfPJDgue4F-NRoY5-
> AOwQ
> >>> eNwLCrjerW2FvlEIu3MaKz2Wg4UL8zcslM3vJfM1DCq2LBW0VqTA6$
> (htmlwdiff
> >>> diff between last version and this)
> >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc97
> >>> 05-lastrfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BIe7YDkZ_z42F7AfPJDgue4F-NRoY5-
> A
> >>> OwQeNwLCrjerW2FvlEIu3MaKz2Wg4UL8zcslM3vJfM1DCq2LBZDQhJ5i$
> (rfcdiff
> >>> between last version and this)
> >>>
> >>> We will await any further changes you may have and approvals from each
> author prior to moving forward in the publication process.
> >>>
> >>> [Note that my email address has changed from <apal...@amsl.com> to
> >>> <apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org>.]
> >>>
> >>> Thank you,
> >>> RFC Editor/ap
> >>>
> >>>> On Jan 9, 2025, at 8:11 AM, Chandrasekar Ramachandran
> <csekar=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Please find a few more comments below. I am going through the
> document fully once again and will provide a final list of comments (if any)
> on
> Monday.
> >>>>
> >>>> Abstract:
> >>>>
> >>>> Facility backup method allow one or more LSPs traversing...
> >>>> should be
> >>>> Facility backup method allows one or more LSPs traversing...
> >>>>
> >>>> Security Considerations:
> >>>>
> >>>> The security considerations pertaining to the original RSVP
> >>>> protocols ([RFC2205], [RFC3209], and [RFC5920]) remain relevant.
> >>>> should be
> >>>> The security considerations pertaining to the original RSVP
> >>>> protocol ([RFC2205], [RFC3209], and [RFC5920]) remain relevant.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> 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
> >>>>
> >>>> On the earlier discussion (shown above) on whether "RSVP" should be
> added for which we provided a comment to make it "RSVP-TE", it will be
> better to keep it as "RSVP" as you suggested because that is the convention
> used in RFC 8370.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Chandra.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Juniper Business Use Only
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: Alanna Paloma <apal...@amsl.com>
> >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2025 6:01 AM
> >>>>> To: Chandrasekar Ramachandran <cse...@juniper.net>
> >>>>> Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org; ts...@cisco.com;
> >>>>> inami...@google.com; dante.j.pace...@verizon.com;
> >>>>> 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]
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Chandra,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you for your reply. We have updated as requested.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-
> >>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9705.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-
> >>>>> gk!Ffb5OXElFZyT8k54wSdXaSSIZVB4koLrq4-
> >>>>> gSHhCAQNrB5_iTsKfND9wzggggVyJzUI4xyOO0kJHew$
> >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-
> >>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9705.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-
> >>>>> gk!Ffb5OXElFZyT8k54wSdXaSSIZVB4koLrq4-
> >>>>> gSHhCAQNrB5_iTsKfND9wzggggVyJzUI4xyNA9m3WMQ$
> >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-
> >>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9705.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-
> >>>>> gk!Ffb5OXElFZyT8k54wSdXaSSIZVB4koLrq4-
> >>>>> gSHhCAQNrB5_iTsKfND9wzggggVyJzUI4xyN7PuCB9g$
> >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-
> >>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9705.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-
> >>>>> gk!Ffb5OXElFZyT8k54wSdXaSSIZVB4koLrq4-
> >>>>> gSHhCAQNrB5_iTsKfND9wzggggVyJzUI4xyPfSJNPCA$
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here:
> >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc
> >>>>> 9705-
> >>>>> diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Ffb5OXElFZyT8k54wSdXaSSIZVB4koLrq4-
> >>>>> gSHhCAQNrB5_iTsKfND9wzggggVyJzUI4xyO6Km9sTg$ (comprehensive
> diff)
> >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc
> >>>>> 9705-
> >>>>> auth48diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-
> gk!Ffb5OXElFZyT8k54wSdXaSSIZVB4koLrq4
> >>>>> - gSHhCAQNrB5_iTsKfND9wzggggVyJzUI4xyNiAMVGkA$ (AUTH48
> changes)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please review the document carefully and contact us with any
> >>>>> further updates you may have. Note that we do not make changes
> >>>>> once a document is published as an RFC.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48
> >>>>> status page below prior to moving this document forward in the
> publication process.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
> >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-
> >>>>> editor.org/auth48/rfc9705__;!!NEt6yMaO-
> >>>>> gk!Ffb5OXElFZyT8k54wSdXaSSIZVB4koLrq4-
> >>>>> gSHhCAQNrB5_iTsKfND9wzggggVyJzUI4xyP_pDM6vQ$
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>> RFC Editor/ap
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Jan 6, 2025, at 8:51 AM, Chandrasekar Ramachandran
> >>>>> <csekar=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 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 +IBM
> >>>>>>> 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 +IBg-REPLY
> >>>>>>> ALL+IBk 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/ms
> >>>>>>> g/iet
> >>>>>>> f-
> >>>>>>> announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc__;!!NEt6yMaO-
> >>>>> gk!FM2VL8WYKZ4l-
> >>>>>>> zDnXFEMT1bMvVmTs-
> >>>>>>>
> E1_Al7pzTrypczYwOa9zufdnM4Qo4xmCWUhUKQDOal5wQIaaUo4FQ8Jic$
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> * The archive itself:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/br
> >>>>>>> owse/
> >>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>> +IBQ OR +IBQ
> >>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>> +IBg-REPLY ALL+IBk, 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/r
> >>>>>>> fc970
> >>>>>>> 5-
> >>>>>>> diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FM2VL8WYKZ4l-zDnXFEMT1bMvVmTs-
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> E1_Al7pzTrypczYwOa9zufdnM4Qo4xmCWUhUKQDOal5wQIaaUoJUHhmJY$
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/r
> >>>>>>> fc970
> >>>>>>> 5-
> >>>>>>> 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/r
> >>>>>>> fc970
> >>>>>>> 5-
> >>>>>>> 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
