Hi Alice, Approved.
Be well, G/ Sent from Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ________________________________ From: Alice Russo <aru...@staff.rfc-editor.org> Sent: Friday, May 9, 2025 9:02:55 PM To: Luc Andre Burdet (lburdet) <lbur...@cisco.com>; Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com> Cc: Patrice Brissette (pbrisset) <pbris...@cisco.com>; Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <saja...@cisco.com>; je_dr...@yahoo.com <je_dr...@yahoo.com>; Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <jorge.raba...@nokia.com>; bess-...@ietf.org <bess-...@ietf.org>; bess-cha...@ietf.org <bess-cha...@ietf.org>; Matthew Bocci (Nokia) <matthew.bo...@nokia.com>; auth48archive@rfc-ed <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>; RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> Subject: [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9722 <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-12> for your review CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information. Luc André and Gunter (as AD)*, * Gunter, please review Section 2.3 and let us know if you approve the changes pasted below (also shown in the diff files). See Luc André's reply for context. Original: Item 9. in Section 2.1 of [RFC8584], the list "Corresponding actions when transitions are performed or states are entered/exited" is changed as follows: 9. DF_CALC on CALCULATED: Mark the election result for the VLAN or VLAN Bundle. 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. 9.3 Assume the role of NDF for the local PE concerning the VLAN or VLAN Bundle, and transition to the DF_DONE state. 9.4 Assume the role of DF for the local PE concerning the VLAN or VLAN Bundle, and transition to the DF_DONE state. Current: Item 9 in Section 2.1 of [RFC8584], in the list "Corresponding actions when transitions are performed or states are entered/exited", is changed as follows: | 9. DF_CALC on CALCULATED: Mark the election result for the VLAN | or VLAN bundle. | | 9.1 If no Service Carving Time is present during the RCVD_ES | event of Action 11, proceed to step 9.4 | | 9.2 If a Service Carving Time 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. | | 9.3 Assume the role of NDF for the local PE concerning the | VLAN or VLAN bundle. Wait the remaining skew time before | proceeding to step 9.4. | | 9.4 Assume the election result's role (DF or NDF) for the | local PE concerning the VLAN or VLAN bundle and | transition to the DF_DONE state. Luc André, Thank you for providing the updated XML. Re: "Service Carving Time" > IANA should be updated IANA has completed the update on https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fbgp-extended-communities&data=05%7C02%7Cgunter.van_de_velde%40nokia.com%7C3646aee1d45c4b74d19708dd8f2c1df3%7C5d4717519675428d917b70f44f9630b0%7C0%7C0%7C638824141947072982%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nXbHuolUhIMcHRX%2Bqm3DuMVZUb27lrmgyJIMvnmD16w%3D&reserved=0<https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities>. Additional changes were: - capitalized 'field' in the title of Figure 4. - added 'the' to 'the Time Synchronization capability' (2 instances) to match usage of the definite article later in this document. The revised files are here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722.xml This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722-rfcdiff.html (side by side) This diff file shows only the changes made during AUTH48 thus far: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9722-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) We will wait to hear from you again and from your coauthors before continuing the publication process. This page shows the AUTH48 status of your document: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9722 Thank you. RFC Editor/ar > On May 8, 2025, at 2:35 PM, Luc Andre Burdet (lburdet) <lbur...@cisco.com> > wrote: > > Hi, > > • I did a review of the changes from -12 to 9722 (using the diff you > linked to) and see appreciate all the editing effort that went into it. Looks > good to me! > > • Additional corrections between Draft9722 and Draft9722-1 are included > in the XML file attached and I have included also the side-by-side diff. > > • For the figures I have adopted format/language similar to the > following document also in your edit queue – they are both updating the same > Extended community‘s bitmap field: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-13#name-evpn-bgp-attributes-extensi > Figure 2: Bitmap field in the DF Election Extended Community > > • Question 4 is correct, it is not missing ‘not’ but is indeed not the > clearest. > The point here VLANs transitioning to DF wait an extra skew additional to > those transitioning to NDF which wait only SCT minus skew. > Reworded the section: does this help? @Gunter Van De Velde (Nokia - > BE/Antwerp) does this still reflect the change you asked for originally? > > • The document normalised terminology onto “Service Carving Time“ a few > versions back – IANA should be updated and I did a sweep in the XML for > “Service Carving Timestamp” to remove all instances I previously missed. > > • This document is OK with the 8584 errata, the update is to the state > machine part not the HRW algo. > > • I could not find any “DF Election” so I believe you have fixed this > one, and I normalized ‘fraction’ to just actually use RFC5905 capitalisation > and terminology. > > • Extended Community vs. extended community: I found RFC7432 just as > confusing and it *appears** the theme is to capitalize when referred to as a > noun, i.e. “this Extended Community” but when it is a noun’s complement it is > not capitalized? “the MAC Mobility extended community”. > > I have no strong position on this one (nor has reading RFC7432 lifted much > confusion...) > > Thanks Alice ! > > Regards, > Luc André > > Luc André Burdet | lbur...@cisco.com | Tel: +1 613 254 4814 >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
