Authors, This is a reminder that we await word from you regarding the questions below and this document's readiness for publication as an RFC. The files are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722.xml (source) Diff files of all changes from the approved Internet-Draft: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722-rfcdiff.html (side by side) This page shows the AUTH48 status of your document: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9722 Thank you. RFC Editor/ar > On Apr 28, 2025, at 4:34 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > Authors, > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) > the following questions, which are also in the XML file. > > 1) <!--[rfced] May this be rephrased to the form of other definitions? > > Original: > Service carving: DF Election is also referred to as "service > carving" in [RFC7432] > > Perhaps: > Service carving: This refers to DF Election, as defined in > [RFC7432]. > > Or (if you decide to more closely match RFC 7432): > > Perhaps: > Service carving: The default procedure for DF Election, as > detailed in [RFC7432]. > --> > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Because RFC 5905 refers to the "prime epoch" as follows, > would you like to update this sentence to match RFC 5905 more closely? > >> From [RFC5905]: > In the date and timestamp formats, the prime epoch, or base date of > era 0, is 0 h 1 January 1900 UTC, when all bits are zero. > > > Current: > The timestamp exchanged uses the NTP prime epoch of January 1, 1900 > [RFC5905] and an adapted form of the 64-bit NTP Timestamp Format. > > Perhaps: > The timestamp exchanged uses the NTP prime epoch of 0 h 1 January > 1900 UTC [RFC5905] and an adapted form of the 64-bit NTP Timestamp > Format. > --> > > > 3) <!-- [rfced] Regarding double figure titles. > > a) FYI, for Figure 3, the title has been updated as follows > (rather than use two title lines). The figure appears to exactly > match Figure 4 in RFC 8584. > > Current: > Figure 3: DF Election Extended Community (Figure 4 in RFC 8584) > > > b) FYI, for Figure 4, we have removed one line as follows because > Figure 5 in RFC 8584 has been updated, and it has a different title > ("Figure 5: Bitmap Field in the DF Election Extended Community"). > > Original: > Figure 5: DF Election Capabilities > > Figure 4: DF Election Capabilities > > Current: > Figure 4: DF Election Capabilities > > > c) Would you like to make any of the following changes for clarity? > > - update the figure title as follows: > > Figure 4: DF Election Capabilities (Updating Figure 5 in RFC 8584) > > - or add lead-in text before Figure 4, such as the following: > > For the Bitmap field (2 octets), Figure 5 from [RFC8584] is > updated as follows: > > - or change to OLD/NEW format (where OLD is the figure from RFC 8584 > and NEW is the updated figure) > --> > > > 4) <!--[rfced] Section 2.3: the new text. > > a) Is the word "not" missing in 9.1 or 9.2? In other words, should > they be different ("If x is present" and "If x is not present")? > > b) Depending on your reply to the earlier question (#7), > please let us know how "SCT timestamp" should be updated here. > If this is intended to refer to the new Extended Community, and > the name in the IANA registry is correct, then perhaps it would be > updated as follows? > > Original: > 9.1 If an SCT timestamp is present during the RCVD_ES event of > Action 11, wait until the time indicated by the SCT minus > skew before proceeding to step 9.3. > > 9.2 If an SCT timestamp is present during the RCVD_ES event of > Action 11, wait until the time indicated by the SCT before > proceeding to step 9.4. > > Perhaps: > 9.1 If a Service Carving Timestamp is present during the RCVD_ES event of > Action 11, wait until the time indicated by the SCT minus > skew before proceeding to step 9.3. > > 9.2 If a Service Carving Timestamp is present during the RCVD_ES event of > Action 11, wait until the time indicated by the SCT before > proceeding to step 9.4. > --> > > > 5) <!--[rfced] FYI, we updated "to partner PE1" (two instances) for clarity. > We assume the meaning is "its partner PE1" rather than "to partner with > PE1" or similar. Please review. > > Original: > 3. Advertisement: PE2 advertises RT-4, sent at t=100, to partner > PE1. > [...] > 4. Advertisement: PE2 advertises RT-4, sent at t=100, with a target > SCT value of t=103 to partner PE1. > > Current (parentheses as used in Section 3.1): > 3. Advertisement: PE2 advertises RT-4, sent at t=100, to its partner > (PE1). > [...] > 4. Advertisement: PE2 advertises RT-4, sent at t=100, with a target > SCT value of t=103 to its partner (PE1). > --> > > > 6) <!--[rfced] Please clarify "the negative effect of the timer to allow". > May it be updated as shown or otherwise? > > Original: > Using the SCT approach, the negative effect of the timer to allow the > reception of Ethernet Segment RT-4 from other PE nodes is mitigated. > > Perhaps: > The SCT approach mitigates the negative effect of the timer > allowing the reception of Ethernet Segment RT-4 from other PE nodes. > --> > > > 7) <!--[rfced] "Service Carving Time" vs. "Service Carving Timestamp" > > The document and the IANA registry do not match regarding the name > of the new BGP EVPN Extended Community; which one is correct? > (Please see A vs. B below.) Based on your reply, please > review other sections for updates (examples below). > > A) Original > 0x0F Service Carving Time > > B) IANA registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/) > 0x0F Service Carving Timestamp > > > Examples of potential updates in Sections 2 and 2.1. > > Original: > A new BGP EVPN Extended Community, the Service Carving Time is ... > > If the IANA registry is correct: > A new BGP EVPN Extended Community, the Service Carving Timestamp, is ... > > > Original: > Figure 2: Service Carving Time > > If the IANA registry is correct: > Figure 2: Service Carving Timestamp > > > Original: > which are encoded in the Service Carving Time as follows: > > If the IANA registry is correct: > which are encoded in the Service Carving Timestamp as follows: > --> > > > 8) <!-- [rfced] Because this document updates RFC 8584, please > review the errata reported for RFC 8584 > (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc8584) > and let us know if any updates are needed for this document. > > Specifically, please review EID 7811 > (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7811) > regarding Section 3.2 (HRW Algorithm for EVPN DF Election). > The text from the errata report does not appear in this document; > however, the HRW algorithm is mentioned. > > (It appears no actions are needed for EID 5900, as > the term "Broadcast Domain (BD)" is not used in this document.) > --> > > > 9) <!-- [rfced] Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to > be capitalized inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let > us know if/how they may be made consistent. > > DF Election vs. DF election > (seems lowercase is used in RFC 8584 in running text, i.e., > outside titles or proper nouns like "DF Election Extended Community") > > Extended Community vs. extended community > Fractional Seconds vs. fractional seconds > Time Synchronization vs. time synchronization > --> > > > 10) <!-- [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: > "blackholing" (one instance): > > * Prolonged traffic blackholing, if the timer value is too long > --> > > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor/st/ar > > > On Apr 28, 2025, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > Updated 2025/04/28 > > 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/rfc9722.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722.txt > > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff of the XML: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722-xmldiff1.html > > > Tracking progress > ----------------- > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9722 > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > > -------------------------------------- > RFC9722 (draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-12) > > Title : Fast Recovery for EVPN Designated Forwarder Election > Author(s) : P. Brissette, A. Sajassi, LA. Burdet, Ed., J. Drake, J. > Rabadan > WG Chair(s) : Matthew Bocci, Stephane Litkowski, Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang > 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
