Hello, I approve the publication.
Cheers, Clarence > -----Original Message----- > From: Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > Sent: Friday, May 2, 2025 7:45 PM > To: Stefano Salsano <stefano.sals...@uniroma2.it> > Cc: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <rgan...@cisco.com>; RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc- > editor.org>; Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) <cfils...@cisco.com>; > mach.c...@huawei.com; danvoyerw...@gmail.com; Dan Voyer (davoyer) > <davo...@cisco.com>; mpls-...@ietf.org; mpls-cha...@ietf.org; > tony...@tony.li; james.n.guich...@futurewei.com; 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- > YFDnSJQ7cQ3V > >> R- 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-lastdi > >> ff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n- > YFDnSJQ7cQ3V > >> R- aXfERMjY0rDUM$> > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-lastrfcdiff.html <https:// > >> urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779- > >> lastrfcdiff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n- > YFDnSJQ7cQ3V > >> R- aXfERMxz9y4bU$> (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.h > >> tml__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n- > YFDnSJQ7cQ3V > >> R- aXfERMX4LfIks$> > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-rfcdiff.html <https:// > >> urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-rfcdif > >> f.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n- > YFDnSJQ7cQ3V > >> R- aXfERMLrG-ZUg$> (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- > YFDnSJQ7cQ3V > >> R- aXfERMuEFXQow$> > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.txt > >>> <https://urldefense.com/ > >> v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.txt__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n- > YFDnSJQ7cQ3V > >> R- aXfERMIQ6ck5s$> > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.pdf > >>> <https://urldefense.com/ > >> v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.pdf__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n- > YFDnSJQ7cQ3V > >> R- aXfERM3kGkC9Y$> > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.html > >>> <https://urldefense.com/ > >> v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n- > YFDnSJQ7cQ3V > >> R- aXfERMgOwlxTo$> > >>> 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- > YFDnSJQ7cQ3V > >> R- aXfERM8To5wjU$> > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-auth48rfcdiff.html > >>> <https:// > >> urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779- > >> auth48rfcdiff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n- > YFDnSJQ7cQ3V > >> R- aXfERMA6pJ9Pw$> (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- > YFDnSJQ7cQ3V > >> R- aXfERMX4LfIks$> > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-rfcdiff.html <https:// > >> urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779- > >> rfcdiff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n- > YFDnSJQ7cQ3V > >> R- aXfERMLrG-ZUg$> (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- > YFDnSJQ7cQ3V > >> R- aXfERMKktbgAA$> > >>> > > <RG> Performance Measurement for Segment Routing Networks with > >>> > > the MPLS Data Plane > >>> > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that > >>> > > > appear in > >>> > the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search > >>> > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:// > >> www.rfc-editor.org/search__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n- > YFDnSJQ7cQ3V > >> R- aXfERMN9Y_re0$>. --> > >>> > > > <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://urldefen > >>> > > > se.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- > YFDnSJQ7cQ3V > >> R- 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- > YFDnSJQ7cQ3V > >> R- aXfERM_aSn8mc$> > >>> > > * The archive itself: > >>> > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ > >>> > <https:// > >> urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ > >> auth48archive/__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n- > YFDnSJQ7cQ3V > >> R- aXfERM7UtK5pM$> > >>> > > * 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- > YFDnSJQ7cQ3V > >> R- aXfERMuEFXQow$> > >>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.html > >>> > <https://urldefense.com/ > >> v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n- > YFDnSJQ7cQ3V > >> R- aXfERMgOwlxTo$> > >>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.pdf > >>> > <https://urldefense.com/ > >> v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.pdf__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n- > YFDnSJQ7cQ3V > >> R- aXfERM3kGkC9Y$> > >>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.txt > >>> > <https://urldefense.com/ > >> v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.txt__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n- > YFDnSJQ7cQ3V > >> R- aXfERMIQ6ck5s$> > >>> > > 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- > YFDnSJQ7cQ3V > >> R- aXfERMX4LfIks$> > >>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-rfcdiff.html > >>> > <https:// > >> urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779- > >> rfcdiff.html__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n- > YFDnSJQ7cQ3V > >> R- aXfERMLrG-ZUg$> (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- > YFDnSJQ7cQ3V > >> R- aXfERMYnmj910$> > >>> > > > Tracking progress > >>> > ----------------- > >>> > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > >>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9779 > >>> > <https://urldefense.com/v3/ > >> __https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9779__;!!O5Bi4QcV!EG- > >> oLa0qgnQ0emFCiJzjgHJSzzwSJ10Ou71y77R_sHz1DkJwaUUyaxegy0n- > YFDnSJQ7cQ3V > >> R- aXfERMOhIB-ns$> > >>> > > 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
