Hi Ketan, Kamran, Jorge, and Wen, We have received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9819 Thank you for your attention and guidance during the AUTH48 process. We will move this document forward in the publication process at this time. Thank you, RFC Editor/rv > On Jul 15, 2025, at 7:15 AM, Wen Lin <w...@juniper.net> wrote: > > Document looks good and thank you all. > You have my approval. > Thanks, > Wen > > Juniper Business Use Only > From: Kamran Raza (skraza) <skraza=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> > Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 at 9:46 AM > To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <jorge.raba...@nokia.com>, Ketan Talaulikar > <ketant.i...@gmail.com>, Rebecca VanRheenen <rvanrhee...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > Cc: Wen Lin <w...@juniper.net>, 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] > I also approve – thank you all. > From: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <jorge.raba...@nokia.com> > Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 at 9:40 AM > To: Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com>, Rebecca VanRheenen > <rvanrhee...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > Cc: Kamran Raza (skraza) <skr...@cisco.com>, Wen Lin > <wlin=40juniper....@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 > Hi Rebecca, > Document looks good to me. Thank you and Ketan for all the work. > You’ve got my approval. > Thanks! > Jorge > From: Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com> > Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 at 6:27 AM > To: Rebecca VanRheenen <rvanrhee...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > Cc: Kamran Raza (skraza) <skr...@cisco.com>, Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) > <jorge.raba...@nokia.com>, Wen Lin <wlin=40juniper....@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 > 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 again for your work on this document. It looks good to me and please > consider this email as my approval for publication. > Thanks, > Ketan > On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 2:42 AM Rebecca VanRheenen > <rvanrhee...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > Hi Kamran and other authors, > > Kamran - We updated the text in Figure 7 to use “for” per your reply. All of > our questions have now been addressed. > > All - 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. > We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the > publication process. > > 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 14, 2025, at 12:48 PM, Kamran Raza (skraza) <skr...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > > 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$ > > > > > > 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.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$ > > > > > > 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-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-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$ > > > (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$ > > > > > > 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$>? > > > > 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$> > > > > 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$). > > > > > > > > You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties > > > > (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing > > > > your approval. > > > > > > > > Planning your review > > > > --------------------- > > > > > > > > Please review the following aspects of your document: > > > > > > > > * RFC Editor questions > > > > > > > > Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor > > > > that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as > > > > follows: > > > > > > > > <!-- [rfced] ... --> > > > > > > > > These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. > > > > > > > > * Changes submitted by coauthors > > > > > > > > Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your > > > > coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you > > > > agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. > > > > > > > > * Content > > > > > > > > Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot > > > > change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: > > > > - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) > > > > - contact information > > > > - references > > > > > > > > * Copyright notices and legends > > > > > > > > Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in > > > > RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions > > > > (TLP – > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlP69YRnc$). > > > > > > > > * 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$>. > > > > > > > > * Formatted output > > > > > > > > Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the > > > > formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is > > > > reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting > > > > limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. > > > > > > > > > > > > Submitting changes > > > > ------------------ > > > > > > > > To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all > > > > the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties > > > > include: > > > > > > > > * your coauthors > > > > > > > > * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team) > > > > > > > > * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., > > > > IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the > > > > responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). > > > > > > > > * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list > > > > to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion > > > > list: > > > > > > > > * More info: > > > > > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EiNKl-TfjqOaUzixIcN3wm3GEdxC7rbefpXFNolIbp4bcyjjXREBYC_MRX_xk9hXttTbgcXNn3AkVDZPPGiFlD9tJsK8$ > > > > > > > > * The archive itself: > > > > > > > > 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.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.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-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$ > > > > > > > > Diff of the XML: > > > > > > > > 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$ > > > > > > > > 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
