Hi Haibo, Thank you for your review. We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 page and will continue with the publication process shortly.
Thank you, RFC Editor/sg > On May 22, 2025, at 7:16 AM, Wanghaibo (Rainsword) > <rainsword.w...@huawei.com> wrote: > > Hi Sandy, > > All modifications are satisfactory. Thanks for your work. I approve its > publication as an RFC. > > Regards, > Haibo > > |-----Original Message----- > |From: Hantao(hantao,Datacom) <han...@huawei.com> > |Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2025 5:43 PM > |To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org>; Sandy Ginoza > |<sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > |Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; Wanghaibo (Rainsword) > |<rainsword.w...@huawei.com>; ketant.i...@gmail.com; chen....@zte.com.cn; > |idr-...@ietf.org; idr-cha...@ietf.org; sha...@ndzh.com; John Scudder > |<j...@juniper.net>; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > |Subject: 答复: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9723 <draft-ietf-idr-cpr-08> for your review > | > | > |Hi Sandy, > | > |Thanks for your work on this document. I also approve its publication as > RFC. > | > |Best regards, > |Tao > | > |-----邮件原件----- > |发件人: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> > |发送时间: 2025年5月22日 15:14 > |收件人: Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > |抄送: RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; Wanghaibo (Rainsword) > |<rainsword.w...@huawei.com>; ketant.i...@gmail.com; Hantao(hantao,Datacom) > |<han...@huawei.com>; chen....@zte.com.cn; idr-...@ietf.org; > |idr-cha...@ietf.org; sha...@ndzh.com; John Scudder <j...@juniper.net>; > |auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > |主题: RE: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9723 <draft-ietf-idr-cpr-08> for your review > | > |Hi Sandy, > | > |All the changes look good to me, thanks. I approve its publication as RFC. > | > |Best regards, > |Jie > | > |> -----Original Message----- > |> From: Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > |> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2025 1:49 AM > |> To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> > |> Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; Wanghaibo (Rainsword) > |> <rainsword.w...@huawei.com>; ketant.i...@gmail.com; > |> Hantao(hantao,Datacom) <han...@huawei.com>; chen....@zte.com.cn; > |> idr-...@ietf.org; idr-cha...@ietf.org; sha...@ndzh.com; John Scudder > |> <j...@juniper.net>; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > |> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9723 <draft-ietf-idr-cpr-08> for your > |> review > |> > |> 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-4Q9l2U > |> >> Sx > |> >> IAe6P > |> >> 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
