Authors, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!--[rfced] May we update the short title that spans the top of the PDF file to more closely match the document title as shown below? Original: AS_SET, AS_CONFED_SET use deprecation Perhaps: Deprecation of AS_SET and AS_CONFED_SET --> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> 3) <!-- [rfced] Errata a) Because this document updates RFC 4271, please review the errata reported for RFC 4271 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4271) and let us know if you confirm our opinion that none of the errata are relevant to the content of this document. b) Because this document updates RFC 5065, please review the errata reported for RFC 5065 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5065) and let us know if you confirm our opinion that none of the errata are relevant to the content of this document. --> 4) <!--[rfced] Should "BCP 172" be added as an entry under the Normative References section, or should "BCP 172" be replaced with "RFC 6472" since it's the only RFC in BCP 172? Please let us know your preference. Abstract/Introduction Original: BCP 172 (i.e., RFC 6472) recommends not using AS_SET and AS_CONFED_SET AS_PATH segment types in the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP). BCP 172 [RFC6472] makes a recommendation for not using AS_SET (see [RFC4271]) and AS_CONFED_SET (see [RFC5065]) AS_PATH path segment types in the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP). Perhaps: RFC 6472 recommends not using AS_SET and AS_CONFED_SET AS_PATH segment types in the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP). [RFC6472] makes a recommendation for not using AS_SET [RFC4271] and AS_CONFED_SET [RFC5065] AS_PATH path segment types in the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP). --> 5) <!--[rfced] For conciseness, we updated "possibility of ambiguity" to "any ambiguity" as shown below. Please let us know of any objections. Original: In particular, the prohibition of AS_SETs and AS_CONFED_SETs removes the possibility of ambiguity about origin AS in RPKI-based route origin validation (RPKI-ROV) [RFC6811] [RFC6907] [RFC9319]. Current: In particular, the prohibition of AS_SETs and AS_CONFED_SETs removes any ambiguity about the origin AS in RPKI-based Route Origin Validation (RPKI-ROV) [RFC6811] [RFC6907] [RFC9319]. --> 6) <!--[rfced] FYI: In order to make the list parallel in Section 3, we updated the second bullet point as shown below. Original: * MUST NOT advertise BGP UPDATE messages containing AS_SETs or AS_CONFED_SETs, and * Upon reception of BGP UPDATE messages containing AS_SETs or AS_CONFED_SETs in the AS_PATH or AS4_PATH [RFC6793], MUST use the "treat-as-withdraw" error handling behavior as per [RFC7606]. Current: * MUST NOT advertise BGP UPDATE messages containing AS_SETs or AS_CONFED_SETs and * MUST use the "treat-as-withdraw" error handling behavior per [RFC7606] upon reception of BGP UPDATE messages containing AS_SETs or AS_CONFED_SETs in the AS_PATH or AS4_PATH [RFC6793]. --> 7) <!--[rfced] Please clarify what "the property" refers to in the following sentence. Original: Brief aggregation results in an AS_PATH that has the property (from [RFC4271], Section 9.2.2.2): --> 8) <!--[rfced] We updated the following sentence for clarity as shown below. Please let us know of any objections. Original: As discussed in Section 5.1 of [RFC4632], the presence of both less specific and more specific destinations has the possibility to create forwarding loops between networks. Current: When both less specific and more specific destinations are present, it's possible to create forwarding loops between networks, as discussed in Section 5.1 of [RFC4632]. --> 9) <!-- [rfced] FYI: We updated the reference entry for [Analysis] to match the guidance for referencing web-based public code repositories in the Web Portion of the RFC Style Guide (https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#ref_repo). Original: [Analysis] Hannachi, L. and K. Sriram, "Detailed analysis of AS_SETs in BGP updates", NIST Robust Inter-domain Routing Project Website , October 2019, <https://github.com/ksriram25/IETF/blob/main/Detailed-AS_SET- analysis.txt>. Current: [Analysis] "Detailed analysis of AS_SETs in BGP updates", commit eb0fc22, March 2022, <https://github.com/ksriram25/IETF/blob/main/Detailed- AS_SET-analysis.txt>. --> 10) <!--[rfced] We updated the following sentence for clarity. Please let us know if it changes the intended meaning. Original: Presented here is an illustration of how an AS_SET is not used when aggregating and still data-plane route loops are avoided. Current: The illustration presented below shows how an AS_SET is not used when aggregating and how data plane route loops are avoided. --> 11) <!--[rfced] Regarding Appendices B.1, B.2, and B.3, would it be clearer and easier to read if an introductory sentence was included in each section (and thus each section title was shortened) as shown below? Please review. Additionally, we note that some lines include a period and some don't. May we add a period after each sentence for consistency? Original: B.1. Scenario 1: First one route, then another, each with a fully disjoint AS_PATH Receive R1. Aggregate 192.0.2.0/24 AS_PATH "64501" ... B.2. Scenario 2: First one route, then another, the AS_PATHs overlap at the origin AS. Receive R1. Aggregate 192.0.2.0/24 AS_PATH "64501" ... B.3. Scenario 3: First one route, then another, the AS_PATHs overlap at the neighbor AS Receive R3. Aggregate 192.0.2.0/24 AS_PATH "64504 64501". ... Perhaps: B.1. Scenario 1 Scenario 1 first depicts one route, then another, and each route has a fully disjoint AS_PATH: Receive R1. Aggregate 192.0.2.0/24 AS_PATH "64501". ... B.2. Scenario 2 Scenario 2 first depicts one route, then another, and the AS_PATHs overlap at the origin AS: Receive R1. Aggregate 192.0.2.0/24 AS_PATH "64501". ... B.3. Scenario 3 Scenario 3 first depicts one route, then another, and the AS_PATHs overlap at the neighbor AS: Receive R3. Aggregate 192.0.2.0/24 AS_PATH "64504 64501". ... --> 12) <!-- [rfced] FYI: We have added an expansion for the following abbreviation per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review this expansion and each expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) --> 13) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. For example, please consider whether the following should be updated: - traditional While the NIST website <https://web.archive.org/web/20250214092458/ https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications- author-instructions#table1> indicates that this term is potentially biased, it is also ambiguous. "Tradition" is a subjective term, as it is not the same for everyone. --> Thank you. RFC Editor/kc On May 1, 2025, at 3:57 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/05/01 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-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc * The archive itself: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 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/rfc9774.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9774.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9774.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9774.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9774-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9774-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9774-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9774 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC9774 (draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-as-set-confed-set-18) Title : Deprecation of AS_SET and AS_CONFED_SET in BGP Author(s) : W. Kumari, K. Sriram, L. Hannachi, J. Haas WG Chair(s) : Susan Hares, Keyur Patel, Jeffrey Haas Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter Van de Velde -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
