Hi Rakesh, Thank you for your reviews! We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 page <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9779>.
We will wait to hear from your coauthors as well before continuing with the publication process. Thank you, RFC Editor/sg > On May 2, 2025, at 11:40 AM, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <rgan...@cisco.com> > wrote: > > Thank you, Sandy, for the excellent work. > > Approved. > > Regards, > Rakesh > > > > From: Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > Date: Friday, May 2, 2025 at 1:46 PM > To: Stefano Salsano <stefano.sals...@uniroma2.it> > Cc: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <rgan...@cisco.com>, RFC Editor > <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) > <cfils...@cisco.com>, mach.c...@huawei.com <mach.c...@huawei.com>, > danvoyerw...@gmail.com <danvoyerw...@gmail.com>, Dan Voyer (davoyer) > <davo...@cisco.com>, mpls-...@ietf.org <mpls-...@ietf.org>, > mpls-cha...@ietf.org <mpls-cha...@ietf.org>, tony...@tony.li > <tony...@tony.li>, james.n.guich...@futurewei.com > <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com>, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> > Subject: [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9779 <draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sr-17> for > your review > > Hi Rakesh and Stefano, Jim* (as AD), > > *Jim, please review the change in Section 4.2.1 and let us know if you > approve. The changes are most easily viewed in one these diff files: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-lastdiff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) > > > Rakesh and Stefano, thank you for your help to clarify the text! We have > updated the document as described below. The current files are available at > the following URLs: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.html > > Diffs of the last two rounds of updates: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-lastdiff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) > > AUTH48 diffs: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by > side) > > Comprehensive diffs: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Please review and let us know if any additional updates are needed or if you > approve the RFC for publication. > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/sg > > > > > On Apr 29, 2025, at 12:58 PM, Stefano Salsano <stefano.sals...@uniroma2.it> > > wrote: > > > > Il 28/04/2025 21:34, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) ha scritto: > >> Thanks, Sandy, for the updates. > >> Regarding your question below, I think it may be easier to read if we > >> split it into two sentences. > >> Old text in the draft: > >> In one-way measurement mode defined in Section 2.4 of [RFC6374], the > >> querier can receive "out-of-band" response messages with an IP/UDP > >> header by properly setting the UDP Return Object (URO) TLV in the > >> query message. > >> New text: > >> In one-way measurement mode, as defined in Section 2.4 of [RFC6374], the > >> querier can properly set the UDP Return Object (URO) TLV in the query > >> message. This allows the response message, containing an IP/UDP header for > >> that query message, to be received out-of-band by the querier. > > > > Dear Sandy and Rakesh, > > > > I agree with the text proposed by Rakesh, I only propose to improve and > > clarify the second sentence. We can change it from passive to active mode > > and we can further clarify that the IP/UDP header encapsulates the message > > rather than being contained into the message: > > > > In one-way measurement mode, as defined in Section 2.4 of [RFC > > 6374], the querier can set the UDP Return Object (URO) TLV in the query > > message. This enables the querier to receive the out-of-band response > > message encapsulated in an IP/UDP header sent to the IP address and > > UDP port specified in the URO TLV. > > > > ciao > > Stefano > > > > > >> Does that work? > >> Thanks, > >> Rakesh > >> *From: *Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > >> *Date: *Monday, April 28, 2025 at 1:43 PM > >> *To: *Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <rgan...@cisco.com> > >> *Cc: *RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) > >> <cfils...@cisco.com>, daniel.vo...@bell.ca <daniel.vo...@bell.ca>, > >> stefano.sals...@uniroma2.it <stefano.sals...@uniroma2.it>, > >> mach.c...@huawei.com <mach.c...@huawei.com>, danvoyerw...@gmail.com > >> <danvoyerw...@gmail.com>, Dan Voyer (davoyer) <davo...@cisco.com>, > >> mpls-...@ietf.org <mpls- a...@ietf.org>, mpls-cha...@ietf.org > >> <mpls-cha...@ietf.org>, tony...@tony.li <tony...@tony.li>, > >> james.n.guich...@futurewei.com <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com>, > >> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> > >> *Subject: *Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9779 <draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sr-17> for > >> your review > >> Greetings, > >> Rakesh, thank you for your reply. We have updated the document as noted > >> below. Looking at the change in the diff, we would appreciate you or one > >> of your coauthors confirming that this update is as intended. > >> Specifically, please confirm whether: > >> … response messages with an IP/UDP header “out-of-band” … > >> is the same as or was intended to be > >> … a response to an Out-of-band Response Requested message … > >> The current files are available her: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.xml <https://urldefense.com/ > >> v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.xml__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > >> aXfERMuEFXQow$> > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.txt <https://urldefense.com/ > >> v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.txt__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > >> aXfERMIQ6ck5s$> > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.pdf <https://urldefense.com/ > >> v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.pdf__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > >> aXfERM3kGkC9Y$> > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.html <https://urldefense.com/ > >> v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > >> aXfERMgOwlxTo$> > >> Diffs highlighting the most recent updates: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-lastdiff.html <https:// > >> urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-lastdiff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > >> aXfERMjY0rDUM$> > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-lastrfcdiff.html <https:// > >> urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779- > >> lastrfcdiff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > >> aXfERMxz9y4bU$> (side by side) > >> AUTH48 diffs: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-auth48diff.html <https:// > >> urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779- > >> auth48diff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > >> aXfERM8To5wjU$> > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-auth48rfcdiff.html <https:// > >> urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779- > >> auth48rfcdiff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > >> aXfERMA6pJ9Pw$> (side by side) > >> Comprehensive diffs: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-diff.html <https:// > >> urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-diff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > >> aXfERMX4LfIks$> > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-rfcdiff.html <https:// > >> urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-rfcdiff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > >> aXfERMLrG-ZUg$> (side by side) > >> Thank you, > >> RFC Editor/sg > >>> On Apr 21, 2025, at 3:43 PM, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <rgan...@cisco.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> Hello Sandy, > >>> Thanks for the great updates. They all look good to me. > >>> Please see inline with one comment <RG>.. > >>> From: Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > >>> Date: Monday, April 21, 2025 at 5:19 PM > >>> To: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <rgan...@cisco.com> > >>> Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) > >>> <cfils...@cisco.com>, daniel.vo...@bell.ca<daniel.vo...@bell.ca>, > >>> stefano.sals...@uniroma2.it <stefano.sals...@uniroma2.it>, > >>> mach.c...@huawei.com <mach.c...@huawei.com>, > >>> danvoyerw...@gmail.com<danvoyerw...@gmail.com>, Dan Voyer (davoyer) > >>> <davo...@cisco.com>, mpls-...@ietf.org <mpls- > >> a...@ietf.org>, mpls-cha...@ietf.org <mpls-cha...@ietf.org>, > >> tony...@tony.li <tony...@tony.li>, > >> james.n.guich...@futurewei.com<james.n.guich...@futurewei.com>, > >> auth48archive@rfc- editor.org<auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> > >>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9779 <draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sr-17> for > >>> your review > >>> Hi Rakesh, > >>> Thank you for your review and reply. We have updated the document based > >>> on your replies below. For item 9, we are having trouble parsing the > >>> text: > >>> > <RG> How about following? > >>> > > In one-way measurement mode defined in Section 2.4 of [RFC6374], > >>> > > the > >>> > querier can receive response messages with an IP/UDP > >>> > header “out-of-band” by properly setting the UDP Return Object (URO) > >>> > TLV in the > >>> > query message. We wonder if the following correctly conveys the > >>> > intended meaning? In one-way measurement mode defined in Section > >>> > 2.4 of [RFC6374], the > >>> querier can receive a response to an Out-of-band Response Requested > >>> message by properly setting the UDP Return Object (URO) TLV > >>> in the IP/UDP header. > >>> <RG> Looks good. > >>> Thanks, > >>> Rakesh > >>> Please review the updated files here: > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.xml <https://urldefense.com/ > >> v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.xml__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > >> aXfERMuEFXQow$> > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.txt <https://urldefense.com/ > >> v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.txt__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > >> aXfERMIQ6ck5s$> > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.pdf <https://urldefense.com/ > >> v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.pdf__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > >> aXfERM3kGkC9Y$> > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.html > >>> <https://urldefense.com/ > >> v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > >> aXfERMgOwlxTo$> > >>> AUTH48 diffs (highlight only the changes noted below): > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-auth48diff.html <https:// > >> urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779- > >> auth48diff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > >> aXfERM8To5wjU$> > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-auth48rfcdiff.html <https:// > >> urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779- > >> auth48rfcdiff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > >> aXfERMA6pJ9Pw$> (side by side) > >>> Comprehensive diffs: > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-diff.html <https:// > >> urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779- > >> diff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > >> aXfERMX4LfIks$> > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-rfcdiff.html <https:// > >> urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779- > >> rfcdiff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > >> aXfERMLrG-ZUg$> (side by side) > >>> Please review and let us know if additional updates are needed or if you > >>> approve the RFC for publication. > >>> Thank you, > >>> RFC Editor/sg > >>> > On Apr 16, 2025, at 8:01 PM, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) > >>> > <rgandhi=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > >>> > > Hello Editor, > >>> > > Thank you for the great updates to the document. > >>> > > Note: I am adding new email IDs for Dan Voyer. Dan, please reply > >>> > with your preference on how you would like to update your information > >>> > in the RFC-to-be. > >>> > > Please see replies inline with <RG>… > >>> > > > From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> > >>> > Date: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 at 7:00 PM > >>> > To: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <rgan...@cisco.com>, Clarence Filsfils > >>> > (cfilsfil) <cfils...@cisco.com>, > >>> > daniel.vo...@bell.ca<daniel.vo...@bell.ca>, stefano.sals...@uniroma2.it > >>> > <stefano.sals...@uniroma2.it>, mach.c...@huawei.com > >>> > <mach.c...@huawei.com> > >>> > Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, > >>> > mpls-...@ietf.org <mpls-...@ietf.org>, mpls-cha...@ietf.org > >>> > <mpls-cha...@ietf.org>, tony...@tony.li<tony...@tony.li>, > >>> > james.n.guich...@futurewei.com <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com>, > >>> > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> > >>> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9779 <draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sr-17> 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] May we update the document title as shown below for > > >>> > > clarity? > > Original: > >>> > Performance Measurement for Segment Routing Networks with MPLS Data > >>> > Plane > >>> > > Perhaps: > >>> > Performance Measurement for Segment Routing Networks over the MPLS > >>> > Data Plane > >>> > > --> > >>> > > <RG> We could use following example as a guidance? > >>> > > RFC 8660 uses term: Segment Routing with the MPLS Data Plane > >>> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8660 > >>> > > <https://urldefense.com/ > >> v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8660__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > >> aXfERMKktbgAA$> > >>> > > <RG> Performance Measurement for Segment Routing Networks with the > >>> > > MPLS Data Plane > >>> > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that > >>> > > > appear in > >>> > the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search > >>> > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:// > >> www.rfc-editor.org/search__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > >> aXfERMN9Y_re0$>. --> > >>> > > > <RG> Delay Measurement, Loss Measurement, Link Measurement, SR-MPLS > >>> > > > Policy Measurement > >>> > > > 3) <!-- [rfced] We have updated the text below for readability and > >>> > > > to > clarify the relationship between SR-MPLS and its expansion. > >>> > > > Please review > and let us know any objections. > >>> > > Original: > >>> > This document specifies the application of the MPLS loss and delay > >>> > measurement techniques, originally defined in RFC 6374, RFC 7876, and > >>> > RFC 9341 within Segment Routing (SR) networks that utilize the MPLS > >>> > data plane (SR-MPLS). > > Current: > >>> > This document specifies the application of the MPLS loss and delay > >>> > measurement techniques (originally defined in RFCs 6374, 7876, and > >>> > 9341) > >>> > within Segment Routing (SR) networks that utilize the MPLS data > >>> > plane, > also referred to as Segment Routing over MPLS (SR-MPLS). > >>> > > --> > >>> > > <RG> Ok. > >>> > > > 4) <!-- [rfced] We have updated the text below to demonstrate a 1:1 > >>> > relationship between abbreviation and expansion. Please review. > >>> > > Original: > >>> > > Segment Routing (SR), as specified in [RFC8402], leverages the > >>> > > source > >>> > routing paradigm and applies to both the Multiprotocol Label > >>> > Switching (SR-MPLS) and IPv6 (SRv6) data planes. > > Current: > >>> > > Segment Routing (SR), as specified in [RFC8402], leverages the > >>> > > source > >>> > routing paradigm and applies to both the Multiprotocol Label > >>> > Switching (MPLS) and Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) data planes. > >>> > These are referred to as Segment Routing over MPLS (SR-MPLS) and > >>> > Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6), respectively. > >>> > > --> > >>> > <RG> Ok. > >>> > > > 5) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, please consider whether the following > >>> > > > > suggested update conveys the intended meaning. > > Original: > >>> > This document defines Return Path and Block Number TLV extensions for > >>> > [RFC6374], in Section 6, for delay and loss measurement in SR-MPLS > >>> > networks. > >>> > > Current: > >>> > This document extends [RFC6374] by defining Return Path and Block > > >>> > Number TLVs (see Section 6) for delay and loss measurement in > > >>> > SR-MPLS networks. > >>> > --> > >>> > <RG> Ok. > >>> > > 6) <!-- [rfced] Does "also apply" mean "can also be used"? > > > >>> > > Original: > >>> > These TLV extensions also apply to MPLS Label Switched > >>> > Paths (LSPs) [RFC3031]. > >>> > > Perhaps: > >>> > These TLVs can also be used in MPLS Label Switched > >>> > Paths (LSPs) [RFC3031]. > >>> > --> > >>> > <RG> Ok > >>> > > 7) <!-- [rfced] Seemingly, Success (0x1) is a Control Code. If this > >>> > > is > correct, may we udpate the text as follows? > > Original: > >>> > The responder that supports this TLV MUST return > >>> > Success in "Control Code" [RFC6374] if it is the intended destination > >>> > for the query. > >>> > > Perhaps: > >>> > The responder that supports this TLV MUST return > >>> > Control Code 0x1 (Success) [RFC6374] if it is the intended > >>> > destination > >>> > for the query. > >>> > --> > >>> > > <RG> Ok > >>> > > > 8) <!-- [rfced] Could the text below be adjusted for clarity? > >>> > > > Specifically, > what is being sent as "the destination address"? > >>> > > Original: > >>> > When the querier sets an IP address and a UDP port in the URO TLV, > >>> > the > >>> > response message MUST be sent to that IP address as the destination > >>> > address > >>> > and UDP port as the destination port. > >>> > > Perhaps: > >>> > When the querier sets an IP address and a UDP port in the URO TLV, > >>> > the > >>> > response message MUST be sent to that IP address, with that IP > >>> > address as > >>> > the destination address and the UDP port as the destination port. > >>> > --> > >>> > <RG> Ok > >>> > > > > 9) <!-- [rfced] May we update "out-of-band response messages" to > >>> > > > > > "Out-of-Band Response Requested messages..."? It is unclear > >>> > > > > whether the > text refers to the Response Requested messages or > >>> > > > > res ponses to Out-of-Band > Response Requested messages. > > > >>> > > > > Original: > >>> > In one-way measurement mode defined in Section 2.4 of [RFC6374], the > >>> > querier can receive "out-of-band" response messages with an IP/UDP > >>> > header by properly setting the UDP Return Object (URO) TLV in the > >>> > query message. > --> > >>> > <RG> How about following? > >>> > > In one-way measurement mode defined in Section 2.4 of [RFC6374], > >>> > > the > >>> > querier can receive response messages with an IP/UDP > >>> > header “out-of-band” by properly setting the UDP Return Object (URO) > >>> > TLV in the > >>> > query message. > > > 10) <!-- [rfced] How may we update the text > >>> > below for clarity and > readability? > >>> > > Original: > >>> > In two-way measurement mode defined in Section 2.4 of [RFC6374], the > >>> > response messages SHOULD be sent back in-band on the same link or the > >>> > same end-to-end SR-MPLS path (same set of links and nodes) in the > >>> > reverse direction to the querier, in order to perform accurate two- > >>> > way delay measurement. > >>> > > Perhaps: > >>> > In the two-way measurement mode defined in Section 2.4 of [RFC6374], > >>> > > the response messages SHOULD be sent back one of two ways: either > >>> > > they are sent back in-band on the same link, or they are sent back > >>> > > on the same end-to-end SR-MPLS path (i.e., the same set of links > >>> > and > nodes) in the reverse direction to the querier. This is done > >>> > in order > to perform accurate two-way delay measurement. > >>> > > --> > >>> > <RG> Ok. > >>> > > > > 11) <!-- [rfced] For readability, we suggest the update below. > >>> > > > > Please > review to ensure it does not impact the intended > >>> > > > > meaning. > > Original: > >>> > The querier can request in the query message for the responder > >>> > to send the response message back on a given return path using the > >>> > MPLS Label Stack sub-TLV in the Return Path TLV defined in this > >>> > document. > >>> > > Perhaps: > >>> > In the query message, the querier can request that the responder > >>> > send > the response message back on a given return path using the > >>> > MPLS Label > Stack Sub-TLV in the Return Path TLV defined in this > >>> > document. > >>> > --> > >>> > <RG> Ok. > >>> > > > > 12) <!-- [rfced] Please review these similar sentences and let us > >>> > > > > know if > we may update them for readability. > > More > >>> > > > > specifically, what does "which" refer to in the examples below? > >>> > > > > Does > it refer to the ACH or the different values in parentheses? > >>> > > <RG> Value as in the suggested text. > >>> > > In addition, we were unable to find "Combined DM+LM" in RFC 6374 as > >>> > > seen in > >>> > the third example. Should this be updated to "combined LM/DM message" > >>> > as > used in RFC 6374? > >>> > > <RG> Yes. > >>> > > > Original: > >>> > As defined in [RFC6374], MPLS Delay Measurement (DM) query and > >>> > response messages use the Associated Channel Header (ACH) (value > >>> > 0x000C for delay measurement) [RFC6374], which identifies the message > >>> > type and the message payload as defined in Section 3.2 [RFC6374] > >>> > following the ACH. > > As defined in [RFC6374], MPLS LM query > >>> > and response messages use the > >>> > Associated Channel Header (ACH) (value 0x000A for direct loss > >>> > measurement or value 0x000B for inferred loss measurement), which > >>> > identifies the message type and the message payload defined in > >>> > Section 3.1 [RFC6374] following the ACH. > > As defined in > >>> > [RFC6374], Combined DM+LM query and response messages > >>> > use the Associated Channel Header (ACH) (value 0x000D for direct loss > >>> > and delay measurement or value 0x000E for inferred loss and delay > >>> > measurement), which identifies the message type and the message > >>> > payload defined in Section 3.3 [RFC6374] following the ACH. > > > >>> > Perhaps: > >>> > As defined in [RFC6374], MPLS Delay Measurement (DM) query and > >>> > response > >>> > messages use the Associated Channel Header (ACH) (with the value > >>> > 0x000C > for delay measurement). This value identifies the message > >>> > type and the > >>> > message payload that follow the ACH, as defined in Section 3.2 of > > >>> > [RFC6374]. > >>> > > As defined in [RFC6374], MPLS LM query and response messages use > >>> > > the ACH > >>> > (with the value 0x000A for direct loss measurement or the value > >>> > 0x000B > for inferred loss measurement). This value identifies the > >>> > message type > and the message payload that follow the ACH, as > >>> > defined in Section 3.1 > of [RFC6374]. > >>> > > As defined in [RFC6374], combined DM+LM query and response > >>> > > messages use > the ACH (with the value 0x000D for direct loss and > >>> > > delay measurement or > the value 0x000E for inferred loss and > >>> > > delay measurement). This value > >>> > identifies the message type and the message payload that follows the > >>> > > ACH, as defined in Section 3.3 of [RFC6374]. > >>> > > --> > >>> > <RG> Ok. Except DM+LM to be changed to LM/DM as suggested. > >>> > > > 13) <!-- [rfced] In the instances below, we have adjusted "for > >>> > > > accounting > received traffic". Please review to ensure these > >>> > > > changes do not alter your > meaning. > >>> > > Original: > >>> > The Path Segment Identifier (PSID) [RFC9545] MUST be carried in the > >>> > received data packet for the traffic flow under measurement for > > >>> > accounting received traffic on the egress node of the SR-MPLS Policy. > >>> > > Different values of PSID can be used per Candidate-Path for > >>> > > accounting > >>> > received traffic to measure packet loss at the Candidate- Path level. > >>> > > Current: > >>> > The Path Segment Identifier (PSID) [RFC9545] MUST be carried in the > >>> > received data packet for the traffic flow under measurement, in > >>> > order to > >>> > account for received traffic on the egress node of the SR-MPLS > >>> > Policy. > >>> > > Different values of the PSID can be used per Candidate-Path to > >>> > > account > for received traffic and to measure packet loss at the > >>> > > Candidate-Path > level. > >>> > --> > >>> > <RG> Ok > >>> > > > 14) <!-- [rfced] In the text below, does "while" mean "at the same > >>> > > > time", > or does it represent a contrast (like "whereas" or "on the > >>> > > > other hand")? > >>> > > Original: > >>> > The LM query and response messages defined in [RFC6374] are used to > >>> > measure packet loss for the block of data packets transmitted with > >>> > the previous marking while data packets carry alternate marking. > >>> > > Perhaps: > >>> > The LM query and response messages defined in [RFC6374] are used to > >>> > > measure packet loss for the block of data packets transmitted with > >>> > the > previous marking, whereas data packets carry alternate marking. > >>> > --> > >>> > <RG> Ok > >>> > > > > 15) <!-- [rfced] FYI - The quoted text below appears differently > >>> > > > > in RFC > 9341. We have updated to match RFC 9341. > >>> > > Original: > >>> > "The assumption of the block number mechanism is that the measurement > >>> > nodes are time synchronized" as specified in Section 4.3 of [RFC9341] > >>> > is not necessary, as the block number on the responder can be > >>> > synchronized based on the received LM query messages. > >>> > > Current: > >>> > Section 4.3 of [RFC9341] specifies: "The assumption of this BN > >>> > mechanism is that the measurement nodes are time synchronized." > >>> > However, > this is not necessary, as the block number on the > >>> > responder can be > synchronized based on the received LM query > >>> > messages. > >>> > > --> > >>> > > <RG> Ok > >>> > > > 16) <!-- [rfced] Is "LSE" singular or plural in the text below? > >>> > > Original: > >>> > The MPLS Label Stack contains a list of 32-bit LSE that includes a > >>> > 20-bit label value, 8-bit TTL value, 3-bit TC value, and 1-bit EOS > >>> > (S) field. > > Perhaps (LSE is plural): > >>> > The MPLS Label Stack contains a list of 32-bit LSEs that each > >>> > include a > >>> > 20-bit label value, an 8-bit TTL value, a 3-bit TC value, and a > >>> > 1-bit > EOS (S) field. > >>> > > --> > >>> > <RG> Ok > >>> > > > > 17) <!-- [rfced] We have removed "TLV" from the Descriptions to > >>> > > > > align with > the IANA registries > >>> > > > > <https://www.iana.org/assignments/g-ach-parameters <https:// > >> urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/assignments/g-ach- > >> parameters__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > >> aXfERMke3dELU$>>. > >>> > Please let us know any corrections. > > Original: > >>> > | TBA1 | Return Path TLV | This document | > >>> > | TBA2 | Block Number TLV | This document | > >>> > > Current: > >>> > | 5 | Return Path | RFC 9779 | > >>> > | 6 | Block Number | RFC 9779 | > >>> > --> > >>> > <RG> Ok > >>> > > > > 18) <!-- [rfced] Should the registry name be plural? Note that > >>> > > > > we will ask > IANA to update their registry if this change is > >>> > > > > accepted. > > Current: Return Path Sub-TLV Type > >>> > Perhaps: Return Path Sub-TLV Types > --> > >>> > <RG> Yes > >>> > > > 19) <!-- [rfced] Much of this text duplicates what appears in the > >>> > > > table. > Perhaps the text should just indicate that the code > >>> > > > points are assigned as > defined in Table 2? > > Section 12: > > >>> > > > All code points in the range 0 through 175 in this registry > >>> > shall be allocated according to the "IETF Review" procedure as > >>> > specified in [RFC8126]. Code points in the range 176 through 239 in > >>> > this registry shall be allocated according to the "First Come, First > >>> > Served" procedure as specified in [RFC8126]. Remaining code points > >>> > are allocated according to Table 2: > >>> > > Table 2: > | Value | Description | > >>> > > Reference | > >>> > +===========+=========================+===============+ > >>> > | 1 - 175 | IETF Review | This document | > >>> > | 176 - 239 | First Come First Served | This document | > >>> > | 240 - 251 | Experimental Use | This document | > >>> > | 252 - 254 | Private Use | This document | > >>> > --> > >>> > <RG> Agree to change to: > >>> > > The code points are allocated according to Table 2: > >>> > > > 20) <!-- [rfced] Would it make sense to refer to the MPLS Review > >>> > > > Team > (assuming that is correct), as we are unsure what MPLS-RT > >>> > > > refers to and we > are unable to find information about it. > > > >>> > > > Original: > >>> > Thanks to Huaimo Chen, Yimin Shen, and Xufeng Liu for MPLS-RT expert > >>> > review, ... > >>> > --> > >>> > <RG> Perhaps > >>> > > Thanks to Huaimo Chen, Yimin Shen, and Xufeng Liu for MPLS expert > >>> > review, ... > >>> > > > 21) <!-- [rfced] [IEEE802.1AX] references the 2008 version of this > >>> > > > IEEE > Standard. May we update this reference to use the current > >>> > > > standard from > 2020 as seen in the following URL: > >>> > > > <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9105034<https://urldefense.com/v3/ > >>> > > > > >> __https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9105034__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > >> aXfERMBPhYNs0$>>? > >>> > > --> > >>> > <RG> Yes > >>> > > > 22) <!-- [rfced] We removed the quotes around Control Code > >>> > > > throughout to > align with use in RFC 6374. We have also removed > >>> > > > the quotes and > capitalized "in-band response requested" and > >>> > > > "out-of-band response > requested" to match what appears in RFC > >>> > > > 6374 and the IANA registry. Please > review and let us know if > >>> > > > corrections are needed. > --> > >>> > <RG> Ok > >>> > > 23) <!-- [rfced] Please review the following changes and questions > > >>> > > regarding the terms used in this document: > >>> > > a) RFC 8402 uses "node-SID" and "Anycast-SID" rather than "node SID" > >>> > > and > >>> > "Anycast SID". May we update these to match the usage from RFC 8402? > >>> > > <RG> Yes. > >>> > > b) We note different capitalization of label stack vs. Label Stack. > >>> > > We believe the lowercase "label stack" is used in general text, but > >>> > > "Label Stack" is capitalized when it refers to the the TLV. Please > >>> > > confirm that MPLS Label Stack is capitalized correctly in the > >>> > > following: > >>> > > Original: > The MPLS Label Stack contains a list of 32-bit LSE > >>> > > that includes a > >>> > 20-bit label value, 8-bit TTL value, 3-bit TC value, and 1-bit EOS > >>> > (S) field. An MPLS Label Stack Sub-TLV may carry a stack of labels > >>> > or a Binding SID label [RFC8402] of the Return SR-MPLS Policy. > >>> > --> > >>> > <RG> Perhaps > >>> > > The MPLS label stack contains a list of 32-bit LSE that includes a > >>> > 20-bit label value, 8-bit TTL value, 3-bit TC value, and 1-bit EOS > >>> > (S) field. An MPLS Label Stack Sub-TLV may carry a stack of labels > >>> > or a Binding SID label [RFC8402] of the Return SR-MPLS Policy. > >>> > > > > 24) <!-- [rfced] Please review the following questions and > >>> > > > > changes > regarding the abbreviations used in this document. > >>> > > a) Per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"), abbreviations > >>> > > should be > >>> > expanded upon first use. Is "EOS" in the text below an abbreviation? If > >>> > so, > >>> > how may it be expanded? > >>> > > 1-bit EOS (S) field > >>> > > <RG> Perhaps: > >>> > > 1-bit End of Stack (S) field > >>> > > b) FYI - We have expanded the abbreviation below. Please review to > >>> > ensure correctness. > >>> > > Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) > >>> > > --> > >>> > <RG> Ok > >>> > > 25) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of > >>> > > the > online Style Guide > >>> > > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language > >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/ > >> part2/*inclusive_language__;Iw!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > >> aXfERMlemNz60$>> > >>> > and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature > > >>> > typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. > >>> > > Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this > >>> > > should > still be reviewed as a best practice. > > --> > >>> > > <RG> Believe the document is ok. > >>> > > Thanks, > >>> > > Rakesh > >>> > > > > Thank you. > >>> > > RFC Editor > >>> > > > > On Apr 16, 2025, at 3:52 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > >>> > > *****IMPORTANT***** > >>> > > Updated 2025/04/16 > >>> > > RFC Author(s): > >>> > -------------- > >>> > > Instructions for Completing AUTH48 > >>> > > Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and > >>> > > > approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. > >>> > > > If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies > > >>> > > available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/ > >>> > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:// > >> www.rfc-editor.org/faq/__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > >> aXfERMV3Xtv9o$>). > >>> > > 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) <https://urldefense.com/v3/ > >> __https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > >> aXfERMbfuxA7Y$>. > >>> > > * Semantic markup > >>> > > Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements > >>> > > of > content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that > >>> > > <sourcecode> > and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at > > >>> > > > >>> > > <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary<https://urldefense.com/v3/ > >>> > > > >> __https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > >> aXfERMsWB6zMw$>>. > >>> > > * 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 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:// > >> mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/ > >> yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > >> aXfERM_aSn8mc$> > >>> > > * The archive itself: > >>> > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ > >>> > <https:// > >> urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ > >> auth48archive/__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > >> aXfERM7UtK5pM$> > >>> > > * 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/rfc9779.xml > >>> > <https://urldefense.com/ > >> v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.xml__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > >> aXfERMuEFXQow$> > >>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.html > >>> > <https://urldefense.com/ > >> v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > >> aXfERMgOwlxTo$> > >>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.pdf > >>> > <https://urldefense.com/ > >> v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.pdf__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > >> aXfERM3kGkC9Y$> > >>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.txt > >>> > <https://urldefense.com/ > >> v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.txt__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > >> aXfERMIQ6ck5s$> > >>> > > Diff file of the text: > >>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-diff.html <https:// > >> urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779- > >> diff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > >> aXfERMX4LfIks$> > >>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-rfcdiff.html <https:// > >> urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779- > >> rfcdiff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > >> aXfERMLrG-ZUg$> (side by side) > >>> > > Diff of the XML: > > >>> > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-xmldiff1.html <https:// > >> urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779- > >> xmldiff1.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > >> aXfERMYnmj910$> > >>> > > > Tracking progress > >>> > ----------------- > >>> > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > >>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9779 > >>> > <https://urldefense.com/v3/ > >> __https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9779__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n-YFDnSJQ7cQ3VR- > >> aXfERMOhIB-ns$> > >>> > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for your > >>> > > cooperation, > >>> > > RFC Editor > >>> > > -------------------------------------- > >>> > RFC9779 (draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sr-17) > >>> > > Title : Performance Measurement for Segment Routing > >>> > > Networks with MPLS Data Plane > >>> > Author(s) : R. Gandhi, C. Filsfils, D. Voyer, S. Salsano, M. Chen > >>> > WG Chair(s) : Nicolai Leymann, Tarek Saad, Tony Li > >>> > > Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter Van de Velde > >>> > > > > > > > > -- > > ******************************************************************* > > Prof. Stefano Salsano > > Dipartimento Ingegneria Elettronica > > Universita' di Roma Tor Vergata > > Viale Politecnico, 1 - 00133 Roma - ITALY > > > > http://netgroup.uniroma2.it/Stefano_Salsano/ > > > > E-mail : stefano.sals...@uniroma2.it > > Office : (Tel.) +39 06 72597770 (Fax.) +39 06 72597435 > > ******************************************************************* > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
