Hi everyone, The document looks very good. Thanks for the hard work from Ali and everyone. I approve it. Regards, Patrice Brissette Distinguished Engineer Cisco Systems
From: Sarah Tarrant <starr...@staff.rfc-editor.org> Date: Thursday, March 6, 2025 at 10:09 To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <saja...@cisco.com>, Patrice Brissette (pbrisset) <pbris...@cisco.com>, utt...@att.com <utt...@att.com>, jdr...@juniper.net <jdr...@juniper.net>, sbout...@ciena.com <sbout...@ciena.com>, Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <jorge.raba...@nokia.com>, Matthew Bocci (Nokia) <matthew.bo...@nokia.com> Cc: Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com>, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, bess-...@ietf.org <bess-...@ietf.org>, bess-cha...@ietf.org <bess-cha...@ietf.org>, slitkows.i...@gmail.com <slitkows.i...@gmail.com>, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9744 <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc-12> for your review Hello all, We have updated the document accordingly and have no further questions or comments. We will await approvals from each author 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. Contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form. The updated files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9744.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9744.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9744.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9744.xml The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9744-diff.html (comprehensive diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9744-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes only) Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the most recent version. For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9744 Thank you, RFC Editor/st > On Mar 6, 2025, at 4:42 AM, Matthew Bocci (Nokia) <matthew.bo...@nokia.com> > wrote: > > Hi Sarah, Ali > This looks good to me. > Thanks > Matthew > From: Sarah Tarrant <starr...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > Date: Wednesday, 5 March 2025 at 20:14 > To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <saja...@cisco.com>, Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) > <gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com>, Matthew Bocci (Nokia) > <matthew.bo...@nokia.com> > Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, Patrice Brissette > (pbrisset) <pbris...@cisco.com>, utt...@att.com <utt...@att.com>, > jdr...@juniper.net <jdr...@juniper.net>, > sbout...@ciena.com<sbout...@ciena.com>, Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) > <jorge.raba...@nokia.com>,bess-...@ietf.org <bess-...@ietf.org>, > bess-cha...@ietf.org <bess-cha...@ietf.org>, slitkows.i...@gmail.com > <slitkows.i...@gmail.com>, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9744 <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc-12> for > your review > [You don't often get email from starr...@staff.rfc-editor.org. Learn why this > is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] > > CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking > links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional > information. > > > > Hi Ali, Gunter, and Matthew, > > Thank you for your replies. > > Ali - Thank you for the new proposed text. > > Gunter - Thank you for your approval of Ali's proposed text. > > Matthew - Are there any objections to Ali's proposed text and document > updates? We ask because Ali wrote: > > > Hi Sarah, if no objections from Matthew and Gunter, then please update the > > draft accordingly. > > A) > Original: > Additionally, when the remote ES fails and the PE receives the "mass > withdrawal" message associated with the failed ES per [RFC7432], a PE > device can quickly update its BGP list of available remote entries to > invalidate all VPWS service tunnels sharing the ESI field and achieve > fast convergence for multi-homing scenarios. Even if fast > convergence was not needed, there would still be a need for signaling > each AC failure (via its corresponding VPWS service tunnel) > associated with the failed ES so that the BGP path list for each of > them gets updated accordingly and the packets are sent to a backup PE > (in case of Single-Active multi-homing) or to other PEs in the > redundancy group (in case of All-Active multi-homing). In the > absence of updating the BGP path list, the traffic for that VPWS > service tunnel will be black-holed. > > Proposed: > Additionally, when the remote ES fails and the PE receives the "mass > withdrawal" message associated with the failed ES per [RFC7432], a PE > device can quickly update its next-hop adjacency list (adjacency list) > for all VPWS service tunnels sharing the ESI field and achieve > fast convergence for multi-homing scenarios. Even if fast > convergence was not needed, there would still be a need for signaling > each AC failure (via its corresponding VPWS service tunnel) > associated with the failed ES so that the adjacency list > gets updated and the packets are sent to a backup PE > (in case of Single-Active multi-homing) or to other PEs in the > redundancy group (in case of All-Active multi-homing). In the > absence of updating the adjacency list properly, the > traffic for that VPWS service tunnel will be dropped by the egress PE with > a failed ES/AC. > > B) > Original: > * Default FXC (Figure 1): In the default mode, a VLAN or AC failure > is not signaled. Consequently, in case of an AC failure, such as > VID1 on CE2, there is nothing to prevent PE3 from directing > traffic from CE4 to PE1, leading to a potential black hole. > > Proposed: > * Default FXC (Figure 1): In the default mode, a VLAN or AC failure > is not signaled. Consequently, in case of an AC failure, such as > VID1 on CE2, there is nothing to prevent PE3 from directing > traffic from CE4 to PE1, leading to a potential packet loss at the > egress > PE with a failed AC. > > C) > Replace all instances of the following terms with "adjacency list": > BGP list > BGP path list > path list > > Sincerely, > RFC Editor/st > > > > On Mar 5, 2025, at 1:16 PM, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <saja...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > > Thanks Gunter! > > Sarah, can you please update the draft based on the proposed text. > > Thanks very much, > > Ali > > From: Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com> > > Date: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 at 12:09 AM > > To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <saja...@cisco.com>, Matthew Bocci (Nokia) > > <matthew.bo...@nokia.com>, Sarah Tarrant <starr...@staff.rfc-editor.org>, > > Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <sajassi=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> > > Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, Patrice > > Brissette (pbrisset) <pbris...@cisco.com>, utt...@att.com <utt...@att.com>, > > jdr...@juniper.net <jdr...@juniper.net>, sbout...@ciena.com > > <sbout...@ciena.com>, Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <jorge.raba...@nokia.com>, > > bess-...@ietf.org <bess-...@ietf.org>, bess-cha...@ietf.org > > <bess-cha...@ietf.org>, slitkows.i...@gmail.com <slitkows.i...@gmail.com>, > > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> > > Subject: RE: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9744 <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc-12> for > > your review > > Ali, > > Thanks. This sounds good to me, and approved. It describes the failure > > impacts more accurately. > > G/ > > From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <saja...@cisco.com> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 4:44 AM > > To: Matthew Bocci (Nokia) <matthew.bo...@nokia.com>; Gunter van de Velde > > (Nokia) <gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com>; Sarah Tarrant > > <starr...@staff.rfc-editor.org>; Ali Sajassi (sajassi) > > <sajassi=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> > > Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org; Patrice Brissette (pbrisset) > > <pbris...@cisco.com>; utt...@att.com; jdr...@juniper.net; > > sbout...@ciena.com; Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <jorge.raba...@nokia.com>; > > bess-...@ietf.org; bess-cha...@ietf.org; slitkows.i...@gmail.com; > > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9744 <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc-12> for > > your review > > CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking > > links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional > > information. > > Hi Matthew, Gunter: Thanks for your input. In the context of the failure > > scenarios that is being discussed, there won’t be a routing loop or other > > misrouting but rather a traffic loss (aka black hole). I think for better > > clarification, the term “next-hop adjacencies” needs to be used instead of > > “BGP path list”. So, I’d like to purpose the following changes: > > Hi Sarah, if no objections from Matthew and Gunter, then please update the > > draft accordingly. > > ORIGINAL#1: > > Additionally, when the remote ES fails and the PE receives the "mass > > withdrawal" message associated with the failed ES per [RFC7432], a PE > > device can quickly update its BGP list of available remote entries to > > invalidate all VPWS service tunnels sharing the ESI field and achieve > > fast convergence for multi-homing scenarios. Even if fast > > convergence was not needed, there would still be a need for signaling > > each AC failure (via its corresponding VPWS service tunnel) > > associated with the failed ES so that the BGP path list for each of > > them gets updated accordingly and the packets are sent to a backup PE > > (in case of Single-Active multi-homing) or to other PEs in the > > redundancy group (in case of All-Active multi-homing). In the > > absence of updating the BGP path list, the traffic for that VPWS > > service tunnel will be black-holed. > > PROPOSED#1: > > Additionally, when the remote ES fails and the PE receives the "mass > > withdrawal" message associated with the failed ES per [RFC7432], a PE > > device can quickly update its next-hop adjacency list (adjacency list) > > for all VPWS service tunnels sharing the ESI field and achieve > > fast convergence for multi-homing scenarios. Even if fast > > convergence was not needed, there would still be a need for signaling > > each AC failure (via its corresponding VPWS service tunnel) > > associated with the failed ES so that the adjacency list > > gets updated and the packets are sent to a backup PE > > (in case of Single-Active multi-homing) or to other PEs in the > > redundancy group (in case of All-Active multi-homing). In the > > absence of updating the adjacency list properly, the > > traffic for that VPWS service tunnel will be dropped by the egress PE > > with a failed ES/AC. > > > > ORIGINAL#2: > > * Default FXC (Figure 1): In the default mode, a VLAN or AC failure > > is not signaled. Consequently, in case of an AC failure, such as > > VID1 on CE2, there is nothing to prevent PE3 from directing > > traffic from CE4 to PE1, leading to a potential black hole. > > > > PROPOSED#2: > > * Default FXC (Figure 1): In the default mode, a VLAN or AC failure > > is not signaled. Consequently, in case of an AC failure, such as > > VID1 on CE2, there is nothing to prevent PE3 from directing > > traffic from CE4 to PE1, leading to a potential packet loss at the > > egress > > PE with a failed AC. > > Also please replace all instances of “BGP list” or “BGP path list” or > > “path list” with “adjacency list” throughout the document. > > Cheers, > > Ali > > From: Matthew Bocci (Nokia) <matthew.bo...@nokia.com> > > Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 at 7:02 AM > > To: Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com>, Sarah > > Tarrant <starr...@staff.rfc-editor.org>, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) > > <sajassi=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> > > Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, Patrice > > Brissette (pbrisset) <pbris...@cisco.com>, utt...@att.com > > <utt...@att.com>,jdr...@juniper.net <jdr...@juniper.net>, > > sbout...@ciena.com<sbout...@ciena.com>, Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) > > <jorge.raba...@nokia.com>, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <saja...@cisco.com>, > > bess-...@ietf.org <bess-...@ietf.org>, bess-cha...@ietf.org > > <bess-cha...@ietf.org>,slitkows.i...@gmail.com <slitkows.i...@gmail.com>, > > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> > > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9744 <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc-12> for > > your review > > I am not sure “pathologies” is the right word here. Can I suggest > > rephrasing that sentence to “potential routing loops or other conditions > > where traffic is unintentionally misrouted or discarded.” > > Matthew > > From: Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com> > > Date: Tuesday, 4 March 2025 at 12:37 > > To: Sarah Tarrant <starr...@staff.rfc-editor.org>, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) > > <sajassi=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> > > Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, Patrice > > Brissette (pbrisset) <pbris...@cisco.com>, utt...@att.com > > <utt...@att.com>,jdr...@juniper.net <jdr...@juniper.net>, > > sbout...@ciena.com<sbout...@ciena.com>, Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) > > <jorge.raba...@nokia.com>, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <saja...@cisco.com>, > > bess-...@ietf.org <bess-...@ietf.org>, bess-cha...@ietf.org > > <bess-cha...@ietf.org>,slitkows.i...@gmail.com <slitkows.i...@gmail.com>, > > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> > > Subject: RE: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9744 <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc-12> for > > your review > > Hi All, > > > > > For example, please consider whether the following should be updated: > > > > > > black hole > > > block-holed > > > --> > > > Ali> I would prefer “black hole” and “black holed” > > > > Aloi, All, From an inclusiveness language would the following work? > > > > ORIGINAL#1: > > In the > > absence of updating the BGP path list, the traffic for that VPWS > > service tunnel will be black-holed. > > > > PROPOSED#1: > > In the > > absence of updating the BGP path list, the traffic for that VPWS > > service tunnel will ***suffer from routing loops, misrouting or other > > pathologies***. > > > > ORIGINAL#2: > > * Default FXC (Figure 1): In the default mode, a VLAN or AC failure > > is not signaled. Consequently, in case of an AC failure, such as > > VID1 on CE2, there is nothing to prevent PE3 from directing > > traffic from CE4 to PE1, leading to a potential black hole. > > > > PROPOSED#2: > > * Default FXC (Figure 1): In the default mode, a VLAN or AC failure > > is not signaled. Consequently, in case of an AC failure, such as > > VID1 on CE2, there is nothing to prevent PE3 from directing > > traffic from CE4 to PE1, leading to ***potential routing loops, > > misrouting or other pathologies***. > > > > G/ > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sarah Tarrant <starr...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > > Sent: Monday, March 3, 2025 6:08 PM > > To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <sajassi=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> > > Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org; Patrice Brissette (pbrisset) > > <pbris...@cisco.com>;utt...@att.com; jdr...@juniper.net; > > sbout...@ciena.com; Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <jorge.raba...@nokia.com>; Ali > > Sajassi (sajassi) <saja...@cisco.com>; bess-...@ietf.org; > > bess-cha...@ietf.org; slitkows.i...@gmail.com; Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) > > <gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com>; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9744 <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc-12> for > > your review > > > > > > CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking > > links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional > > information. > > > > > > > > Hi Ali, > > > > Thank you for your reply. We have updated the document accordingly. > > > > Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not > > make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any > > further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form. > > We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the > > publication process. > > > > The updated files have been posted here (please refresh): > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9744.txt > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9744.pdf > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9744.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9744.xml > > > > The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9744-diff.html (comprehensive > > diff)https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9744-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 > > changes only) > > > > Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the > > most recent version. > > > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9744 > > > > Thank you, > > RFC Editor/st > > > > > On Feb 28, 2025, at 12:01 AM, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) > > > <sajassi=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > > > > > Dear RFC-Editor, > > > Thanks you for your recommendations, please refer to my comments inline > > > marked with “Ali>” . Once they are incorporated, I will be happy to > > > approve it. > > > From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> > > > Date: Wednesday, February 26, 2025 at 2:41 PM > > > To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <saja...@cisco.com>, Patrice Brissette > > > (pbrisset) <pbris...@cisco.com>, utt...@att.com <utt...@att.com>, > > > jdr...@juniper.net<jdr...@juniper.net>, sbout...@ciena.com > > > <sbout...@ciena.com>, jorge.raba...@nokia.com > > > <jorge.raba...@nokia.com> > > > Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, > > > bess-...@ietf.org<bess-...@ietf.org>, bess-cha...@ietf.org > > > <bess-cha...@ietf.org>, slitkows.i...@gmail.com > > > <slitkows.i...@gmail.com>, gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com > > > <gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com>,auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > > > <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> > > > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9744 <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc-12> > > > for your review Authors, > > > > > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as > > > necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file. > > > > > > 1) <!-- [rfced] Please note that the title of the document has been > > > updated as follows. Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 > > > of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review. > > > > > > Original: > > > EVPN VPWS Flexible Cross-Connect Service > > > > > > Current: > > > EVPN Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) Flexible Cross-Connect (FXC) > > > Service > > > --> > > > Ali> That’ fine. > > > > > > > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] We're having trouble understanding "can designate on" > > > in the text below. Should this be updated to "can designate"? > > > > > > Original: > > > [RFC8214] describes a solution to deliver P2P services using BGP > > > constructs defined in [RFC7432]. It delivers this P2P service > > > between a pair of Attachment Circuits (ACs), where an AC can > > > designate on a PE, a port, a VLAN on a port, or a group of VLANs on a > > > port. > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > [RFC8214] describes a solution to deliver P2P services using BGP > > > constructs defined in [RFC7432]. It delivers this P2P service > > > between a pair of Attachment Circuits (ACs), where an AC can > > > designate a PE, a port, a VLAN on a port, or a group of VLANs on a > > > port. > > > --> > > > Ali> It should be changed to “…, where an AC on a PE can represent a > > > port, a VLAN on a port, or a group of VLANs on a port.” > > > > > > 3) <!--[rfced] To have a 1:1 matchup between the following > > > abbreviations and their expansions, may we update as follows? > > > > > > Original: > > > Ethernet A-D: Ethernet Auto-Discovery (A-D) per EVI and Ethernet A-D > > > per ESI routes, as defined in [RFC7432] and [RFC8214]. > > > ... > > > PE: Provider Edge device > > > ... > > > VRF: VPN Routing and Forwarding table > > > ... > > > IP-VRF: VPN Routing and Forwarding table, for IP lookup > > > ... > > > MAC-VRF: VPN Routing and Forwarding table, for MAC lookup > > > ... > > > VID-VRF: VPN Routing and Forwarding table, for Normalized VID > > > lookup > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > Ethernet A-D: Ethernet Auto-Discovery (per EVI and per ESI routes, > > > as defined in [RFC7432] and [RFC8214]) > > > Ali> also use “or” instead of “and”: “ Ethernet A-D: Ethernet > > > Auto-Discovery (per EVI or per ESI routes, as defined in [RFC7432] and > > > [RFC8214])” > > > ... > > > PE: Provider Edge > > > ... > > > VRF: VPN Routing and Forwarding > > > ... > > > IP-VRF: VPN Routing and Forwarding for IP lookup > > > > > > MAC-VRF: VPN Routing and Forwarding for MAC lookup > > > > > > VID-VRF: VPN Routing and Forwarding for normalized VID lookup > > > --> > > > > > > > > > 4) <!-- [rfced] We were unable to find exactly "12-bit VPWS service > > > instance identifiers" in [RFC8214]. We did find the following in Section > > > 3 of [RFC8214]: > > > > > > The VPWS service instance identifier value MAY be set to a 24-bit > > > value, > > > and when a 24-bit value is used, it MUST be right-aligned. > > > > > > For a more accurate citation, may we update to something like the > > > following? > > > > > > Current: > > > As stated in [RFC8214], 12-bit and 24-bit VPWS service instance > > > identifiers > > > representing normalized VIDs MUST be right-aligned. > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > 24-bit VPWS service instance identifiers [RFC8214] as well as 12-bit > > > VPWS service instance identifiers representing normalized VIDs MUST > > > be right-aligned. > > > --> > > > Ali> That’s fine. > > > > > > 5) <!--[rfced] To clarify the numbered list, we have updated this > > > sentence in Section 3.2. Please review and ensure that the intended > > > meaning has not changed. Note that we have made a similar update to a > > > sentence in Section 3.3. > > > > > > Original: > > > Additionally, this route > > > is sent with the EVPN Layer-2 Extended Community defined in > > > Section 3.1 of [RFC8214] with two new flags (outlined in Section 4) > > > that indicate: 1) this VPWS service tunnel is for the default > > > Flexible Cross-Connect, and 2) the normalized VID type (single versus > > > double). > > > > > > Current: > > > Additionally, this route > > > is sent with the EVPN Layer 2 Extended Community defined in > > > Section 3.1 of [RFC8214] with two new flags (outlined in Section 4) > > > that indicate: 1) this VPWS service tunnel for the default > > > Flexible Cross-Connect and 2) the normalized VID type (single versus > > > double). > > > --> > > > Ali> Please change it to: “… 1) the VPW service tunnel (set to default > > > Flexible Cross-Connect) and 2) the normalized VID type (set to normalized > > > single-VID or double-VID)” > > > > > > > > > 6) <!--[rfced] Please note that a slash (/) can mean "and", "or", or > > > "and/or". > > > We have updated it to "and" in the text below for clarity. Please > > > review and let us know if any further updates are needed. > > > > > > Original: > > > In this mode of operation, similar to the default FXC mode described > > > in Section 3.2, many normalized VIDs representing ACs across several > > > Ethernet Segments/interfaces are multiplexed into a single EVPN VPWS > > > service tunnel. > > > > > > Current: > > > In this mode of operation, similar to the default FXC mode described > > > in Section 3.2, many normalized VIDs representing ACs across several > > > Ethernet Segments and interfaces are multiplexed into a single EVPN > > > VPWS > > > service tunnel. > > > --> > > > Ali> That’s fine. > > > > > > > > > 7) <!--[rfced] May we remove "service" after "FXC" in the following > > > sentence? > > > Additionally, please note that we have numbered the items listed to > > > improve readability. > > > > > > Original: > > > However, only two VPWS > > > Service Tunnels are required: VPWS Service Tunnel 1 (sv.T1) between > > > PE1's FXC service and PE3's FXC, and VPWS Service Tunnel 2 (sv.T2) > > > between PE2's FXC and PE3's FXC. > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > However, only two VPWS > > > Service Tunnels are required: 1) VPWS Service Tunnel 1 (sv.T1) between > > > PE1's FXC and PE3's FXC and 2) VPWS Service Tunnel 2 (sv.T2) > > > between PE2's FXC and PE3's FXC. > > > --> > > > Ali> That’s fine. > > > > > > > > > 8) <!--[rfced] May we update the following acronyms and their > > > expansions to better reflect the text in RFC 5885? > > > > > > Original: > > > The failure detection of an EVPN VPWS service can be performed via > > > OAM mechanisms such as VCCV-BFD (Bidirectional Forwarding Detection > > > for the Pseudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification, > > > [RFC5885]) and upon such failure detection, the switch over procedure > > > to the backup S-PE is the same as the one described above. > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > The failure detection of an EVPN VPWS service can be performed via > > > OAM mechanisms such as Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) > > > for the pesudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) > > > [RFC5885], and upon such failure detection, the switch over procedure > > > to the backup S-PE is the same as the one described above. > > > --> > > > Ali> That’s fine. > > > > > > > > > 9) <!-- [rfced] Terminology > > > > > > A) To match usage in RFC 8214, may we update the following terms to > > > the format on the right? > > > > > > single-active > Single-Active > > > all-active > All-Active > > > EVPN VPWS > EVPN-VPWS > > > Ethernet A-D per EVI route > Ethernet A-D per-EVI route Ethernet A-D > > > per ES route > Ethernet A-D per-ES route VLAN-bundle > VLAN bundle > > > Ali> Please do so. > > > > > > > > > B) Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used > > > inconsistently. May we update them to the format on the right? > > > > > > Normalized VID > normalized VID > > > VLAN-signaled flexible cross-connect > VLAN-signaled FXC VLAN-signaled > > > Flexible Cross-Connect > VLAN-signaled FXC > > > Ali> Please do so. > > > > > > > > > C) Since RFC 8214 uses "EVPN Layer 2 Attributes Extended Community", > > > should the following terms be update to match? We ask because of the > > > possible addition of "Attributes". > > > > > > EVPN Layer 2 Extended Community (Sections 3.2 and 3.3) EVPN Layer 2 > > > attribute extended community (Section 4) > > > --> > > > Ali> Please update to match RFC 8214. > > > > > > 10) <!--[rfced] Abbreviations > > > > > > A) FYI - We have added expansions for the following abbreviations per > > > Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each > > > expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. > > > > > > Autonomous System (AS) > > > Switching Provider Edge (S-PE) > > > Ali> Please change S-PE to PE. I don’t think you need to expand PE as it > > > has been used many times previously. > > > > > > B) Both the expansion and the acronym for Ethernet Segment (ES) are > > > used throughout the document. Would you like to update to using the > > > expansion upon first usage and the acronym for the rest of the document > > > for consistency? > > > Ali> Please do so. > > > > > > > > > C) We note that "FXC" appears to be expanded in different ways > > > throughout the document. May we update all these instances to be > > > "Flexible Cross-Connect" > > > for consistency? > > > > > > Flexible Xconnect > > > Flexible Cross Connect > > > Flexible Cross-Connect > > > Ali> Please do so. > > > > > > > > > D) We note that "VCCV" is expaned in two different ways in this document. > > > Please review and let us know which version should be updated for > > > consistency. > > > > > > Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification Virtual Circuit Connection > > > Verification > > > --> > > > Ali> The top one – ie., Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > For example, please consider whether the following should be updated: > > > > > > black hole > > > block-holed > > > --> > > > Ali> I would prefer “black hole” and “black holed” > > > Regards, > > > Ali > > > > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > RFC Editor/st/ap > > > > > > > > > On Feb 26, 2025, at 2:29 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > > > > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > > > > > Updated 2025/02/26 > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > * 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://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxI > > > Ae6P8O4Zc > > > > > > * 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, > > > 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://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9744.xml > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9744.html > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9744.pdf > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9744.txt > > > > > > Diff file of the text: > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9744-diff.html > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9744-rfcdiff.html (side by > > > side) > > > > > > Diff of the XML: > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9744-xmldiff1.html > > > > > > > > > Tracking progress > > > ----------------- > > > > > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9744 > > > > > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > > > > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > > > > > RFC Editor > > > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > RFC9744 (draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc-12) > > > > > > Title : EVPN VPWS Flexible Cross-Connect Service > > > Author(s) : A. Sajassi, P. Brissette, J. Uttaro, J. Drake, S. > > > Boutros, J. Rabadan > > > WG Chair(s) : Matthew Bocci, Stephane Litkowski, Zhaohui (Jeffrey) > > > Zhang > > > > > > 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
