Hi Dongjie, Thank you for your reply. We have updated the document as described below and posted the files here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9723.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9723.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9723.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9723.xml
AUTH48 diffs: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9723-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9723-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) Comprehensive diffs: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9723-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9723-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 May 14, 2025, at 7:54 AM, Dongjie (Jimmy) > <jie.dong=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > Hi RFC Editor, > > Thanks for this mail. Please find my replies inline. > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 4:41 AM >> To: Wanghaibo (Rainsword) <rainsword.w...@huawei.com>; Dongjie (Jimmy) >> <jie.d...@huawei.com>; ketant.i...@gmail.com; Hantao(hantao,Datacom) >> <han...@huawei.com>; chen....@zte.com.cn >> Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org; idr-...@ietf.org; idr-cha...@ietf.org; >> sha...@ndzh.com; j...@juniper.net; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org >> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9723 <draft-ietf-idr-cpr-08> 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] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the >> title) >> for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> > > Please add: intent-aware routing as keyword. > > >> >> 2) <!-- [rfced] RFC 8277 doesn't appear to use the term "BGP Labeled Unicast" >> or "BGP-LU." For clarity, may we add text to draw a more clear connection, >> for example, "the mechanism described in RFC 8277 is referred to BGP-LU >> although that term does not actually appear in the document." >> >> Original: >> The inter-domain path can be established using either Multi-Protocol >> Label Switching (MPLS) or IP data plane. In MPLS-based networks, the >> usual inter-domain approach is to establish an end-to-end Label- >> Switched Path (LSP) based on the BGP Labeled Unicast (BGP-LU) >> mechanism as defined in [RFC8277]. >> --> >> > > Thanks for catching this. Maybe the second sentence could be rephrased as: > > New: > In MPLS-based networks, the usual inter-domain approach is to establish an > end-to-end Label-Switched Path (LSP) based on the mechanism as defined in > [RFC8277] (which is usually referred to as BGP-LU). > >> >> 3) <!-- [rfced] Would it be correct to change "and" to "whereby"? >> >> Original: >> One way to achieve this is by splitting the base SRv6 locator of the >> node into N sub-locators, and these sub-locators are Colored Prefixes >> associated with different intents. >> --> > > Yes, that change looks good. > >> >> >> 4) <!-- [rfced] RFC 2545 does not contain the term "IPv6 unicast Address >> Family/Subsequent Address Family (AFI/SAFI = 2/1)", "AFI", or "SAFI". We see >> one instance of "Address Family" and a couple instances of "unicast address". >> Please consider how the text and citation can be clarified. >> >> In a multi-AS IPv6 network, the IPv6 unicast Address Family/ >> Subsequent Address Family (AFI/SAFI = 2/1) [RFC2545] is used for the >> advertisement of the Colored Prefix routes. >> --> > > The IPv6 unicast AFI/SAFI is the combination of AFI =2 for IPv6 and SAFI = 1 > (allocated by IANA) for unicast forwarding, and the mechanism for IPv6 > unicast routing is specified in RFC 2545. It is an relatively old RFC and > there is no IANA considerations section. > > How about rephrasing the text as: > > New: > > In a multi-AS IPv6 network, the mechanism for IPv6 unicast routing as > defined in [RFC2545] is used for the advertisement of the Colored Prefix > routes, in which the Address Family/Subsequent Address Family (AFI/SAFI = > 2/1) is used. > > >> >> 5) <!-- [rfced] In the bulleted list, is it correct for SRv6 to be listed >> twice? Also, >> adding conjunctions may improve clarity regarding how the mechanisms are >> related. Is the path built with a combination of the bulleted items or only >> one of the individual items? >> >> Original: >> The intra-domain color-aware path could >> be built with any of the following mechanisms: >> >> * SRv6 or SR-MPLS Policy >> >> * SRv6 or SR-MPLS Flex-Algo >> >> * RSVP-TE >> >> Perhaps (a combination): >> The intra-domain color-aware path could >> be built with any of the following mechanisms: >> >> * SRv6 or SR-MPLS Policy, and >> * SRv6 or SR-MPLS Flex-Algo, and >> * RSVP-TE. > > The first bullet means "SRv6 Policy or SR-MPLS policy", and the second bullet > means "SRv6 Flex-algo or SR-MPLS Flex-Algo". Maybe a better approach is to > list each of them separately. > > New: > The intra-domain color-aware path could be built with any of the following > mechanisms: > * SRv6 Policy > * SR-MPLS Policy > * SRv6 Flex-Algo > * SR-MPLS Flex-Algo > * RSVP-TE > > >> >> Perhaps (a single item): >> The intra-domain color-aware path could >> be built with any of the following mechanisms: >> >> * SRv6, >> * SR-MPLS Policy, >> * SR-MPLS Flex-Algo, or >> * RSVP-TE. >> --> >> >> >> 6) <!-- [rfced] "which makes them belonging" is unclear. We have updated the >> text as shown below. >> >> Original: >> The CPR mechanism can be used in network scenarios where multiple >> inter-connected ASes belong to the same operator, or there is an >> operational trust model between the ASes of different operators which >> makes them belonging to the same trusted domain (in the sense used by >> Section 8 of [RFC8402]). >> >> Current: >> The CPR mechanism can be used in network scenarios where multiple >> inter-connected ASes belong to the same operator, or where there is >> an operational trust model between the ASes of different operators >> which means they belong to the same trusted domain (in the sense used >> by Section 8 of [RFC8402]). >> --> > > The updated text looks good, thanks. > > >> >> 7) <!-- [rfced] What spans across multiple ASes? Is it the SR Policy or the >> tunnel? >> >> Original: >> As described in section 5 of >> [I-D.hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color], the inter-domain >> intent-aware routing may be achieved with a logical tunnel created by >> an SR Policy across multiple ASes, and service traffic with specific >> intent can be steered to the inter-domain SR Policy based on the >> intent signaled by Color Extended Community. >> >> Perhaps: >> As described in Section 5 of >> [INTENTAWARE], the inter-domain >> intent-aware routing may be achieved with a logical tunnel created by >> an SR Policy that applies to multiple ASes. In addition, service >> traffic with a specific intent can be steered to the inter-domain >> SR Policy based on the intent signaled by Color Extended Community. >> --> > > It should be the tunnel which spans across multiple ASes. The updated text > looks good. > > >> >> 8) <!-- [rfced] Is seems as though there may be words missing in the >> following. >> What can "fall back"? >> >> Original: >> This allows the CPR routes to be resolved to >> intent-aware intra-domain paths in any autonomous systems that >> support the CPR mechanism, while can fall back to resolve over best- >> effort intra-domain path in the legacy autonomous systems. > > It is the CPR route which can fall back to resolve over best-effort > intra-domain path. > > New: > > ...while the CPR routes can fall back to resolve over best-effort > intra-domain paths in the legacy autonomous systems. > > > >> --> >> >> >> 9) <!-- [rfced] Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be >> used inconsistently. Please review. >> >> a) Colored Prefix vs Colored prefixes vs colored prefix >> >> We updated to use the form on the left. Please let us know if any updates >> are >> needed. >> >> In addition, please consider whether the capitalization of "Colored locator >> prefixes" is correct. > > Please use "Colored Prefix", or "Colored Prefixes" for plural. > > >> >> >> b) Please review the use of the following and let us know how/if they may >> be updated for consistency. >> >> color extended community vs Color Extended Community > > Please use the latter one, thanks. > > >> >> --> >> >> >> 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. >> >> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should >> still be reviewed as a best practice. > > After checking I believe the current text is OK in this aspect. > > Many thanks, > Jie > >> --> >> >> >> Thank you. >> >> RFC Editor >> >> >> >> On May 12, 2025, at 1:38 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: >> >> *****IMPORTANT***** >> >> Updated 2025/05/12 >> >> 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-4Q9l2USxIAe6P >> 8O4Zc >> >> * 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/rfc9723.xml >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9723.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9723.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9723.txt >> >> Diff file of the text: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9723-diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9723-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> >> Diff of the XML: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9723-xmldiff1.html >> >> >> Tracking progress >> ----------------- >> >> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9723 >> >> Please let us know if you have any questions. >> >> Thank you for your cooperation, >> >> RFC Editor >> >> -------------------------------------- >> RFC 9723 (draft-ietf-idr-cpr-08) >> >> Title : BGP Colored Prefix Routing (CPR) for SRv6 based Services >> Author(s) : H. Wang, J. Dong, K. Talaulikar, T. Han, R. Chen >> WG Chair(s) : Susan Hares, Keyur Patel, Jeffrey Haas >> >> 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
