Hi, I have addressed most in XML directly, with only a few comments here:
Regards, Luc André Luc André Burdet | lbur...@cisco.com<mailto:lbur...@cisco.com> | Tel: +1 613 254 4814 From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> Date: Thursday, May 15, 2025 at 16:30 To: Patrice Brissette (pbrisset) <pbris...@cisco.com>, Luc Andre Burdet (lburdet) <lbur...@cisco.com>, bin_...@comcast.com <bin_...@comcast.com>, edward.leyton <edward.ley...@verizonwireless.com>, jorge.raba...@nokia.com <jorge.raba...@nokia.com> Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, bess-...@ietf.org <bess-...@ietf.org>, bess-cha...@ietf.org <bess-cha...@ietf.org>, slitkows.i...@gmail.com <slitkows.i...@gmail.com>, gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com <gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com>, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9786 <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa-13> 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] Luc André, FYI, we updated your name to match how you updated it in RFC 9722 during AUTH48 recently. Please let us know if you prefer otherwise. --> 2) <!-- [rfced] FYI, we note that RFC 5306 does not mention "LDP". Apparently the digits were transposed, so we updated the reference from [RFC5306] to [RFC5036], titled "LDP Specification". Please let us know if this is not accurate. Original: b. Port-Active redundancy eliminates the need for ICCP and LDP [RFC5306] (e.g., VXLAN [RFC7348] or SRv6 [RFC8402] may be used in the network). Current: b. It eliminates the need for ICCP and LDP [RFC5036] (e.g., Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN) [RFC7348] or Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) [RFC8402] may be used in the network). --> 3) <!--[rfced] The text states that one or more PEs keep the port in standby mode. Do one or more PEs keep the port in active mode as shown below? Original: PEs in the redundancy group leverage the DF election defined in [RFC8584] to determine which PE keeps the port in active mode and which one(s) keep it in standby mode. Perhaps: PEs in the redundancy group leverage the DF election defined in [RFC8584] to determine which PE(s) keeps the port in active mode and which PE(s) keeps it in standby mode. --> 4) <!-- [rfced] [RFC7432] does not mention a "Single-Active blocking scheme", but it does mention "Single-Active redundancy mode". Is an update perhaps needed to the text below? Original: Non-DF routers SHOULD implement a bidirectional blocking scheme for all traffic comparable to the Single-Active blocking scheme described in [RFC7432], albeit across all VLANs. --> 5) <!--[rfced] Should Figure 2 be updated to show the T bit as defined in RFC-to-be 9722 (draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-12), which is currently in AUTH48 state? If so, should any text be added to mention that document? (This question also appears in RFC-to-be 9785.) Original: 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |D|A| |P| | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Perhaps: 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |D|A| |T| |P| | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ --> 6) <!--[rfced] How may we rephrase this sentence for clarity? We note that "DF Elected" is not used elsewhere in the document or in the normative references; should "Elected" perhaps be removed (option A), or should "election" perhaps be used instead (option B)? Also note that RFC 8584 expands "BDF" as "Backup Designated Forwarder" (rather than "Back-up DF Elected"); may we update this expansion accordingly? Original: The algorithm to detemine the DF Elected and Backup-DF Elected (BDF) at Section 3.2 of [RFC8584] is repeated and summarized below using only (Es) in the computation: Perhaps A: The algorithm used to determine the DF and Backup Designated Forwarder (BDF) per Section 3.2 of [RFC8584] is repeated and summarized below using only (Es) in the computation: or Perhaps B: The algorithm used to determine the DF and Backup Designated Forwarder (BDF) elections per Section 3.2 of [RFC8584] is repeated and summarized below using only (Es) in the computation: --> 7) <!--[rfced] In the title of Section 4.1, we added "Bits" as the "P and B bits" are described in this section. Please let us know if this update is not correct. Original: 4.1. Primary / Backup per Ethernet-Segment Current: 4.1. Primary/Backup Bits per Ethernet Segment --> 8) <!--[rfced] Does the remote ESI label extended community signal a Single-Active "procedure" or perhaps "redundancy mode"? Please clarify. Original: * The remote ESI Label Extended Community ([RFC7432]) signals Single-Active (Section 3) Perhaps: * The remote ESI label extended community [RFC7432] signals the Single-Active redundancy mode (Section 3). --> 9) <!-- [rfced] Terminology a) Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how they may be made consistent. Bitmap field vs. bitmap field [Are these different? For example, "a Bitmap (2 octets) field" vs. "DF Election Capabilities bitmap field"] b) We updated the text to use the form on the right for consistency within this document and Cluster 492 (C492). Please let us know of any objections. active-standby -> active/standby All-active -> All-Active DF Election -> DF election (for general use, per RFC 8584) DF Election extended community -> DF Election Extended Community (per RFC 8584) 'Don't Pre-empt' -> 'Don't Preempt' (per companion doc and IANA registry) ESI Label Extended Community -> ESI label extended community (per RFC 7432) Ethernet-AD per-ES -> Ethernet A-D per ES (per RFC 8584) Port Mode DF Election -> Port Mode Designated Forwarder Election (per IANA) Single-active -> Single-Active --> 10) <!-- [rfced] Abbreviations a) FYI: We have added expansions for the following abbreviations per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. Customer Equipment (CE) Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) Media Access Control (MAC) Neighbor Discovery (ND) Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) Virtual Routing and Forwarding (VRF) Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) Virtual eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN) b) For consistency within the RFC series and C492, we updated the document to use the form on the right. Please review. AC-Influenced Designated Forwarder Election (AC-DF) -> AC-Influenced DF (AC-DF) election (per RFC 8584) Interchassis Communication Protocol (ICCP) -> Inter-Chassis Communication Protocol (ICCP) Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation Group (MC-LAG) -> Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation (MC-LAG) group --> 11) <!-- [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: - black-holing --> Thank you. RFC Editor/kc/ar On May 15, 2025, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/05/15 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/rfc9786.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9786.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9786.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9786.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9786-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9786-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9786-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9786 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC9786 (draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa-13) Title : EVPN Port-Active Redundancy Mode Author(s) : P. Brissette, LA. Burdet, Ed., B. Wen, E. Leyton, 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
