Hi Rebecca, Ref:
>> Current: >> Ethernet A-D per ES route ESI-1: >> Perhaps: >> Ethernet A-D per ES route from ESI-1: “from” is not correct - I propose “for”: Ethernet A-D per ES route for ESI-1: From: Rebecca VanRheenen <rvanrhee...@staff.rfc-editor.org> Date: Monday, July 14, 2025 at 2:28 PM To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <jorge.raba...@nokia.com>, Wen Lin <wlin=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org>, Kamran Raza (skraza) <skr...@cisco.com>, Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com> Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, bess-...@ietf.org <bess-...@ietf.org>, bess-cha...@ietf.org <bess-cha...@ietf.org>, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzh...@juniper.net>, Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com>, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9819 <draft-ietf-bess-bgp-srv6-args-10> for your review Hi all, We have updated the following throughout the document (but included both route type and name in first instance): EVPN Route Type 1 > Ethernet A-D per ES route EVPN Route Type 3 > Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag route Please review carefully to ensure correctness. Also, please review this instance in Figure 7; is a word missing before “ESI-1” (perhaps “from”)? Current: Ethernet A-D per ES route ESI-1: Perhaps: Ethernet A-D per ES route from ESI-1: The updated files are below (please refresh). Updated XML file: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819.xml Updated output files: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819.html Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff showing last set of changes during AUTH48: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819-lastdiff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff files showing all changes: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819-rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819-alt-diff.html (diff showing changes where text is moved or deleted) For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9819 Thank you, RFC Editor/rv > On Jul 12, 2025, at 11:52 PM, Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <jorge.raba...@nokia.com> > wrote: > > Yup, that works for me too. > Thanks. > Jorge > From: Wen Lin <wlin=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> > Date: Saturday, July 12, 2025 at 8:24 AM > To: Kamran Raza (skraza) <skr...@cisco.com>, Ketan Talaulikar > <ketant.i...@gmail.com> > Cc: Rebecca VanRheenen <rvanrhee...@staff.rfc-editor.org>, Jorge Rabadan > (Nokia) <jorge.raba...@nokia.com>, RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, > bess-...@ietf.org <bess-...@ietf.org>, bess-cha...@ietf.org > <bess-cha...@ietf.org>, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzh...@juniper.net>, Gunter > van de Velde (Nokia) <gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com>, > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9819 <draft-ietf-bess-bgp-srv6-args-10> 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. > Sounds good. > Thanks, > Wen > Juniper Business Use Only > From: Kamran Raza (skraza) <skr...@cisco.com> > Date: Saturday, July 12, 2025 at 11:18 AM > To: Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com>, Wen Lin <w...@juniper.net> > Cc: Rebecca VanRheenen <rvanrhee...@staff.rfc-editor.org>, Jorge Rabadan > (Nokia) <jorge.rabadan=40nokia....@dmarc.ietf.org>, RFC Editor > <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, bess-...@ietf.org <bess-...@ietf.org>, > bess-cha...@ietf.org <bess-cha...@ietf.org>, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang > <zzh...@juniper.net>, Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) > <gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com>, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9819 <draft-ietf-bess-bgp-srv6-args-10> for > your review > [External Email. Be cautious of content] > +1 > From: Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com> > Date: Saturday, July 12, 2025 at 4:48 AM > To: Wen Lin <w...@juniper.net> > Cc: Rebecca VanRheenen <rvanrhee...@staff.rfc-editor.org>, Jorge Rabadan > (Nokia) <jorge.rabadan=40nokia....@dmarc.ietf.org>, Kamran Raza (skraza) > <skr...@cisco.com>, RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, bess-...@ietf.org > <bess-...@ietf.org>, bess-cha...@ietf.org <bess-cha...@ietf.org>, Jeffrey > (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzh...@juniper.net>, Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) > <gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com>, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9819 <draft-ietf-bess-bgp-srv6-args-10> for > your review > How about we use both route type and name together in the introduction (on > first occurrence) and from there on use only the name throughout the rest of > the document? > Thanks, > Ketan > On Sat, Jul 12, 2025 at 7:30 AM Wen Lin <w...@juniper.net> wrote: > Hi Rebecca, > Thank you for updating the draft. > All instances of “EVPN Route Type 1” need to be changed to “Ethernet A-D per > ES route”. For consistency, suggest changing all instances of “EVPN Route > Type 3” to “Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag route”. > Thanks, > Wen > Juniper Business Use Only > From: Rebecca VanRheenen <rvanrhee...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > Date: Friday, July 11, 2025 at 6:59 PM > To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <jorge.rabadan=40nokia....@dmarc.ietf.org>, Ketan > Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com>, skr...@cisco.com <skr...@cisco.com>, Wen > Lin <w...@juniper.net> > Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, bess-...@ietf.org > <bess-...@ietf.org>, bess-cha...@ietf.org <bess-cha...@ietf.org>, Jeffrey > (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzh...@juniper.net>, Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) > <gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com>, > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org<auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9819 <draft-ietf-bess-bgp-srv6-args-10> for > your review > [External Email. Be cautious of content] > > > Hi Ketan and Jorge, > > Thank you for addressing our questions. We’ve updated the document > accordingly. > > In regard to question #4, we made the changes suggested by Jorge. Note that > we expanded “A-D” in the first instance. We also updated the second sentence > in Section 3.1 from "A-D per ES routes” to “Ethernet A-D per ES routes” to > correspond with Jorge’s suggestions. We don’t see any other sentences that > include the names of the routes, but there are a number of sentences that use > just “EVPN Route Type 1” and “EVPN Route Type 3”. Let us know if any further > updates are needed. > > Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make > changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any further > updates or with your approval of the document in its current form. > > The updated files are below (please refresh). > > Updated XML file: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlAVy3INV$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlAVy3INV$> > > Updated output files: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlPalsJan$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlPalsJan$> > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlElpNYeJ$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlElpNYeJ$> > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlEb8xSUo$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlEb8xSUo$> > > Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819-auth48diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlJVGAKBJ$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819-auth48diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlJVGAKBJ$> > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819-auth48rfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlEcrUeZP$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819-auth48rfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlEcrUeZP$> > (side by side) > > Diff files showing all changes: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlIJXjRt5$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlIJXjRt5$> > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819-rfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlGss61Rm$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819-rfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlGss61Rm$> > (side by side) > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819-alt-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlID2DIsN$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819-alt-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlID2DIsN$> > (diff showing changes where text is moved or deleted) > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9819__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlA_ZTydz$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9819__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlA_ZTydz$> > > Thank you! > > RFC Editor/rv > > > > > On Jul 11, 2025, at 5:01 AM, Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) > > <jorge.rabadan=40nokia....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Rebecca, > > Just a couple of comments along those where Ketan wanted my opinion (with > > [jorge]). > > For everything else, I agree with Ketan. > > Thanks, > > Jorge > > From: Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com> > > Date: Thursday, July 10, 2025 at 11:39 PM > > To: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> > > Cc: skr...@cisco.com <skr...@cisco.com>, Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) > > <jorge.raba...@nokia.com>,w...@juniper.net <w...@juniper.net>, > > bess-...@ietf.org <bess-...@ietf.org>, > > bess-cha...@ietf.org<bess-cha...@ietf.org>, zzh...@juniper.net > > <zzh...@juniper.net>, Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) > > <gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com>, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > > <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> > > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9819 <draft-ietf-bess-bgp-srv6-args-10> 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. > > Hi Rebecca, > > Thanks for your help with this document. Please check inline below for > > responses. > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 10:17 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 we update the document title as follows to improve > > readability? > > > > Original: > > Segment Routing over IPv6 Argument Signaling for BGP Services > > > > Perhaps: > > Argument Signaling for BGP Services in Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) > > --> > > KT> Ack > > > > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] We updated "with argument" here to "with an argument". Let > > us > > know if it should be "with arguments" instead. > > > > Original: > > Section 6.3 of [RFC9252] specifies that the SRv6 Service SID used in > > the data plane is derived by applying a bitwise logical-OR operation > > between the SID with argument signaled via Route Type 1 and the SID > > with the 'locator + function' components signaled via Route Type 3. > > > > Updated: > > Section 6.3 of [RFC9252] specifies that the SRv6 Service SID used in > > the data plane is derived by applying a bitwise logical-OR operation > > between the SID with an argument signaled via Route Type 1 and the SID > > with the 'Locator + Function' components signaled via Route Type 3. > > --> > > KT> Ack > > > > > > 3) <!-- [rfced] These sentences may be difficult to follow because of the > > two > > instances of "based on...". How may we update to improve readability? > > > > Original: > > Based on the above procedures, the SRv6 Service SID encoding for the > > data plane without an ESI Filtering ARG, based on the examples in > > Figure 1 and Figure 3, is as follows: > > ... > > Based on the above procedures, the SRv6 Service SID encoding for the > > data plane along with an ESI Filtering ARG, based on the examples in > > Figure 2 and Figure 4, is as follows: > > > > Perhaps: > > Using the procedures above with the examples in Figures 1 and 3, the > > SRv6 Service SID encoding for the > > data plane without an ESI Filtering ARG > > is as follows: > > ... > > Using the procedures above with the examples in Figures 2 and 4, the > > SRv6 Service SID encoding for the > > data plane along with an ESI Filtering ARG > > is as follows: > > --> > > KT> Ack > > > > > > 4) <!-- [rfced] We have a few question about the text below. > > > > a) The following sentences include the descriptions of EVPN Route Types 1 > > and/or 3. Note that not all mentions of EVPN Route Types 1 and 3 include the > > descriptions. Would removing the descriptions in these sentences improve > > readability? If needed, perhaps the descriptions can be added to a > > Terminology > > section (which could be added as a new Section 1.2) or included in the first > > instance. > > KT> I will defer this along with (b) below to Jorge for consistency across > > EVPN documents. > > [jorge] see my comment below. > > > > b) Also, several forms are used for the description of EVPN Route Type 1: > > > > Ethernet Auto-Discovery per Ethernet Segment (A-D per ES) > > Ethernet Auto-Discovery (A-D) per ES > > Ethernet Auto-Discovery per Ethernet Segment Route > > Should the definition match what is listed in the IANA registry at > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/assignments/evpn__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlLWpDUfS$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.iana.org/assignments/evpn__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlLWpDUfS$>>? > > RFC 7432 and IANA registry define EVPN > > Route Type 1 as "Ethernet Auto-discovery", but RFC 7432 also discusses > > "Ethernet A-D per ES route" and "Ethernet A-D per EVI route". > > > > Original: > > As specified in [RFC9252], the LOC:FUNC portion of the SRv6 SID with > > End.DT2M behavior is signaled via EVPN Route Type 3 (Inclusive > > Multicast Ethernet Tag Route), while the Ethernet Segment Identifier > > (ESI) Filtering ARG (denoted as Arg.FE2 in [RFC8986]) is signaled via > > EVPN Route Type 1 (Ethernet Auto-Discovery per Ethernet Segment (A-D > > per ES) Route). > > > > In deployments where a mix of compressed and uncompressed SIDs is > > present, the behaviors advertised in the Ethernet Auto-Discovery > > (A-D) per ES Routes (EVPN Route Type 1) and Inclusive Multicast > > Ethernet Tag Routes (EVPN Route Type 3) MAY consist of a combination > > of compressed and uncompressed End.DT2M behavior flavors. > > > > Ethernet Auto-Discovery (A-D) per ES Routes (EVPN Route Type 1), as > > defined in [RFC7432], are utilized to enable split-horizon filtering > > and fast convergence in multi-homing scenarios. > > > > The Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag Route (EVPN Route Type 3), as > > defined in [RFC7432], is used to advertise multicast traffic > > reachability information via MP-BGP to all other PE routers within a > > given EVPN instance. > > > > When ESI Filtering is in use, the ESI Filtering ARG of the SRv6 > > Service SID is signaled through EVPN Route Type 1 (Ethernet Auto- > > Discovery per Ethernet Segment Route). > > > > Perhaps: > > As specified in [RFC9252], the LOC:FUNC portion of the SRv6 SID with > > End.DT2M behavior is signaled via EVPN Route Type 3, > > while the Ethernet Segment Identifier > > (ESI) Filtering ARG (denoted as Arg.FE2 in [RFC8986]) is signaled via > > EVPN Route Type 1. > > > > In deployments where a mix of compressed and uncompressed SIDs is > > present, the behaviors advertised in > > EVPN Route Type 1 and > > EVPN Route Type 3 MAY consist of a combination > > of compressed and uncompressed End.DT2M behavior flavors. > > > > EVPN Route Type 1, as > > defined in [RFC7432], is utilized to enable split-horizon filtering > > and fast convergence in multi-homing scenarios. > > > > EVPN Route Type 3, as > > defined in [RFC7432], is used to advertise multicast traffic > > reachability information via MP-BGP to all other PE routers within a > > given EVPN instance. > > > > When ESI Filtering is in use, the ESI Filtering ARG of the SRv6 > > Service SID is signaled through EVPN Route Type 1. > > --> > > KT> I am ok with this change proposal, however I will defer this to Jorge > > for consistency with other EVPN specs since I do also see a mixed use of > > these terms in other documents. > > [jorge] In the latest EVPN-related RFCs we’ve tried to align the names of > > the routes with the ones in RFC7432 (Ethernet A-D per ES, Ethernet A-D per > > EVI, Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag routes). Also we can’t really say > > “EVPN Route Type 1” since it is ambiguous, it may mean Ethernet A-D per ES > > or Ethernet A-D per EVI route, depending on the context. Therefore, this is > > my suggestion: > > ORIGINAL: > > > > As specified in [RFC9252], the LOC:FUNC portion of the SRv6 SID with > > End.DT2M behavior is signaled via EVPN Route Type 3 (Inclusive > > Multicast Ethernet Tag Route), while the Ethernet Segment Identifier > > (ESI) Filtering ARG (denoted as Arg.FE2 in [RFC8986]) is signaled via > > EVPN Route Type 1 (Ethernet Auto-Discovery per Ethernet Segment (A-D > > per ES) Route). > > > > In deployments where a mix of compressed and uncompressed SIDs is > > present, the behaviors advertised in the Ethernet Auto-Discovery > > (A-D) per ES Routes (EVPN Route Type 1) and Inclusive Multicast > > Ethernet Tag Routes (EVPN Route Type 3) MAY consist of a combination > > of compressed and uncompressed End.DT2M behavior flavors. > > > > Ethernet Auto-Discovery (A-D) per ES Routes (EVPN Route Type 1), as > > defined in [RFC7432], are utilized to enable split-horizon filtering > > and fast convergence in multi-homing scenarios. > > > > The Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag Route (EVPN Route Type 3), as > > defined in [RFC7432], is used to advertise multicast traffic > > reachability information via MP-BGP to all other PE routers within a > > given EVPN instance. > > > > When ESI Filtering is in use, the ESI Filtering ARG of the SRv6 > > Service SID is signaled through EVPN Route Type 1 (Ethernet Auto- > > Discovery per Ethernet Segment Route). > > NEW: > > > > As specified in [RFC9252], the LOC:FUNC portion of the SRv6 SID with > > End.DT2M behavior is signaled via Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag > > route, while the Ethernet Segment Identifier (ESI) Filtering ARG > > (denoted as Arg.FE2 in [RFC8986]) is signaled via Ethernet A-D > > per ES route. > > > > In deployments where a mix of compressed and uncompressed SIDs is > > present, the behaviors advertised in the Ethernet A-D per ES routes > > and Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag routes MAY consist of a combination > > of compressed and uncompressed End.DT2M behavior flavors. > > > > Ethernet A-D per ES routes, as defined in [RFC7432], are utilized to > > enable split-horizon filtering and fast convergence in multi-homing > > scenarios. > > > > The Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag route, as defined in [RFC7432], is > > used to advertise multicast traffic reachability information via MP-BGP > > to all other PE routers within a given EVPN instance. > > > > When ESI Filtering is in use, the ESI Filtering ARG of the SRv6 > > Service SID is signaled through Ethernet A-D per ES route. > > > > [jorge] if there are other instances in the document we should be > > consistent with the above. > > > > > > 5) <!-- [rfced] Terminology > > > > a) We updated two instance of "SRv6 Endpoint behavior" to "SRv6 Endpoint > > Behavior" to match usage elsewhere in the document and in RFC 9252. Should > > the > > two instances of "endpoint behavior" in the sentences below also be updated > > to > > "SRv6 Endpoint Behavior" (capitalized and prefaced with "SRv6")? Note that > > we > > did not make any changes to "End.DT2M behavior". > > > > Original: > > As specified in Section 3.2.1 of [RFC9252], the SRv6 SID Structure > > Sub-Sub-TLV MUST be included when signaling an SRv6 SID corresponding > > to an endpoint behavior that supports argument. > > ... > > While the focus is primarily on the signaling of the End.DT2M SRv6 > > Endpoint Behavior via EVPN Route Types 1 and 3, the procedures > > described herein are also applicable to other similar endpoint > > behaviors with arguments that may be signaled using BGP. > > KT> Ack - please replace "endpoint behavior" with "SRv6 Endpoint Behavior" > > for consistency with RFC9252 > > > > b) We see that "BGP Prefix SID Attr" is used in the figures. Should this > > align > > with usage in general text? That is, should it be updated to "BGP Prefix-SID > > Attribute"? > > > > Also, should "BGP Prefix-SID Attribute" be updated to "BGP Prefix-SID > > attribute" > > (lowercase "attribute")? We see that the lowercase "attribute" is used in > > this context in RFC 9252 and other published RFCs. > > > > Current: > > BGP Prefix SID Attr (in figures) > > BGP Prefix-SID Attribute (in text) > > > > Perhaps: > > BGP Prefix-SID attribute > > KT> Ack > > > > > > c) We note that "Overlay Service" is capitalized in this document, but it is > > lowercase in RFC 9252. Would you like to use the lowercase "overlay service" > > for consistency with RFC 9252? > > KT> Ack - please change to lower case. > > > > d) We note inconsistencies in the terms below throughout the text. Should > > these be uniform? If so, please let us know which form is preferred. > > > > Route Type 1 > > EVPN Route Type 1 > > > > Route Type 3 > > EVPN Route Type 3 > > KT> Prefer to use EVPN Route Type for consistency > > Leaf > > leaf > > KT> It should be lowercase > > > > e) We updated the following term as shown below. Let us know any concerns. > > > > Global Internet Routing > global Internet routing > > Note: Per usage in RFCs 9505, 9199, and others. > > --> > > KT> Ack > > > > > > 6) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for the following > > abbreviation(s) > > per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each > > expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. > > > > Multiprotocol BGP (MP-BGP) > > --> > > KT> Ack > > > > > > 7) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online > > Style Guide > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/*inclusive_language__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlBAPiMzN$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/*inclusive_language__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlBAPiMzN$>> > > 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. > > --> > > KT> Thanks for the check > > > > > > 8) <!-- [rfced] Please review each artwork element in the xml file. > > Specifically, > > should the artwork elements in Figures 1-6 be tagged as sourcecode or > > another element? > > --> > > KT> They are all artwork and not source code. > > Thanks, > > Ketan > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > RFC Editor/rv > > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 2025, at 9:44 AM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > > > Updated 2025/07/10 > > > > 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlNIgAe3U$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/faq/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlNIgAe3U$>). > > > > 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlP69YRnc$)<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/trustee.ietf.org/license-info__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlP69YRnc$)>. > > > > * 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlAGxoDS5$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlAGxoDS5$>>. > > > > * 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlD9tJsK8$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlD9tJsK8$> > > > > * The archive itself: > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlCoLWRYq$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlCoLWRYq$> > > > > * 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlAVy3INV$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlAVy3INV$> > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlEb8xSUo$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlEb8xSUo$> > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlElpNYeJ$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlElpNYeJ$> > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlPalsJan$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlPalsJan$> > > > > Diff file of the text: > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlIJXjRt5$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlIJXjRt5$> > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819-rfcdiff<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819-rfcdiff>.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlGss61Rm$ > > (side by side) > > > > Alt-diff of the text (allows you to more easily view changes > > where text has been deleted or moved): > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819-alt-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlID2DIsN$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819-alt-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlID2DIsN$> > > > > Diff of the XML: > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819-xmldiff1.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlO9Xhq6b$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9819-xmldiff1.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlO9Xhq6b$> > > > > > > Tracking progress > > ----------------- > > > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9819__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlA_ZTydz$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9819__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlA_ZTydz$> > > > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > > > RFC Editor > > > > -------------------------------------- > > RFC9819 (draft-ietf-bess-bgp-srv6-args-10) > > > > Title : Segment Routing over IPv6 Argument Signaling for BGP > > Services > > Author(s) : K. Talaulikar, K. Raza, J. Rabadan, W. Lin > > 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
