Dear IANA, Please make the following updates to match the edited document at <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9830-diff.html>.
1) Under the "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs” registry at <https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-tunnel-encapsulation/>: OLD: 129 Policy Candidate Path Name sub-TLV 130 Policy Name sub-TLV NEW: 129 SR Policy Candidate Path Name sub-TLV 130 SR Policy Name sub-TLV ... 2) Under the "SR Policy Binding SID Flags” and "SR Policy SRv6 Binding SID Flags” registries at <https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-tunnel-encapsulation/>: OLD: 1 Drop Upon Invalid Flag (I-Flag) NEW: 1 Drop-Upon-Invalid Flag (I-Flag) ... 3) Under the "SR Policy ENLP Values” registry at <https://www.iana.org/assignments/segment-routing/>: OLD: 1 Push an IPv4 Explicit NULL label on an unlabeled IPv4 packet, but do not push an IPv6 Explicit NULL label on an unlabeled IPv6 packet 2 Push an IPv6 Explicit NULL label on an unlabeled IPv6 packet, but do not push an IPv4 Explicit NULL label on an unlabeled IPv4 packet 3 Push an IPv6 Explicit NULL label on an unlabeled IPv6 packet, and push an IPv4 Explicit NULL label on an unlabeled IPv4 packet NEW (remove the commas): 1 Push an IPv4 Explicit NULL label on an unlabeled IPv4 packet but do not push an IPv6 Explicit NULL label on an unlabeled IPv6 packet 2 Push an IPv6 Explicit NULL label on an unlabeled IPv6 packet but do not push an IPv4 Explicit NULL label on an unlabeled IPv4 packet 3 Push an IPv6 Explicit NULL label on an unlabeled IPv6 packet and push an IPv4 Explicit NULL label on an unlabeled IPv4 packet Thank you in advance! RFC Editor/kc > On Aug 4, 2025, at 2:04 PM, Karen Moore <kmo...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > Thank you for your response; we have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status > page (https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9830). > > We will now ask IANA to update their registries to match the edited document. > We will inform you when the updates are complete. > > Best regards, > RFC Editor/kc > >> On Aug 4, 2025, at 11:32 AM, Paul Mattes <pamat...@microsoft.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> The document looks good to me. >> >> pdm >> >> >> >> From: Karen Moore <kmo...@staff.rfc-editor.org> >> Sent: Monday, August 4, 2025 12:40 PM >> To: D Jain <dhanendra.i...@gmail.com>; Ketan Talaulikar >> <ketant.i...@gmail.com>; Paul Mattes <pamat...@microsoft.com>; Clarence >> Filsfils (cfilsfil) <cfils...@cisco.com>; >> stef...@previdi.net<stef...@previdi.net> >> Cc: Megan Ferguson <mfergu...@staff.rfc-editor.org>; RFC Editor >> <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; idr-...@ietf.org<idr-...@ietf.org>; idr-chairs >> <idr-cha...@ietf.org>; Sue Hares <sha...@ndzh.com>; Roman Danyliw >> <r...@cert.org>; Shawn Zandi via auth48archive <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9830 >> <draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-13> for your review >> >> [You don't often get email from kmo...@staff.rfc-editor.org. Learn why this >> is important athttps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] >> >> Dhanendra and Stefano, >> >> Thank you for your replies. We have noted your approvals on the AUTH48 >> status page >> (https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9830&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662146350%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Qrur9iWIKrFQN5LA1ltExrc73RfvUql2m2rcH5gUpPI%3D&reserved=0). >> >> We now await approval from Paul. Once approval is received, we will ask IANA >> to update their registries to match the edited document. >> >> Best regards, >> RFC Editor/kc >> >> >>> On Aug 4, 2025, at 1:48 AM, Stefano Previdi <stef...@previdi.net> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> the document looks good to me. >>> >>> thanks. >>> s. >> >> >>> On Aug 2, 2025, at 5:51 PM, D Jain <dhanendra.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Karen, >>> >>> >>> >>> The document looks good to me. I approve the publication. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Dhanendra. >>> >> >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 12:42 PM Karen Moore <kmo...@staff.rfc-editor.org> >>> wrote: >>> Hello Clarence and Ketan, >>> >>> Thanks for your replies. We have noted Clarence’s approval on the AUTH48 >>> status page >>> (https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9830&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662174104%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=XP4Bg6pt0aF7MR5NtWK%2FmOvJLwOSVbdd%2BPvmY0uu99Q%3D&reserved=0). >>> >>> We now await approvals from Dhanendra, Paul, and Stefano. Once approvals >>> are received, we will ask IANA to update their registries to match the >>> edited document. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> RFC Editor/kc >>> >>>> On Aug 1, 2025, at 1:28 AM, Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) >>>> <cfils...@cisco.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> The document looks good to me and I approve its publication. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Clarence >>>> >>>> From: Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com> >>>> Sent: Friday, August 1, 2025 7:40 AM >>>> To: Karen Moore <kmo...@staff.rfc-editor.org> >>>> Cc: Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) <cfils...@cisco.com>; >>>> dhanendra.i...@gmail.com; stef...@previdi.net; pamat...@microsoft.com; >>>> Megan Ferguson <mfergu...@staff.rfc-editor.org>; RFC Editor >>>> <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; idr-...@ietf.org; idr-chairs >>>> <idr-cha...@ietf.org>; Sue Hares <sha...@ndzh.com>; Roman Danyliw >>>> <r...@cert.org>; Shawn Zandi via auth48archive >>>> <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> >>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9830 <draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-13> for >>>> your review >>>> >>>> Thanks Karen everything looks good to me. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Ketan >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 2:31 AM Karen Moore <kmo...@staff.rfc-editor.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> Hi Ketan, >>>> >>>> Thank you for the clarifications and for working closely with us on the >>>> terminology; we have noted your approval of the document on the AUTH48 >>>> status page. Note that we updated our files to reflect “long SR Policy >>>> name” and have included “SR” for “Policy Name”, “Policy Candidate Path”, >>>> and the TLV names with policy in them (excluding "Explicit NULL Label >>>> Policy” as previously mentioned). >>>> >>>> We also changed “Policy Color” to “Color”, and we updated the SR Policy >>>> SAFI NLRI as follows; if that is not correct, please let us know. >>>> >>>> Original: >>>> SR Policy SAFI NLRI: <Distinguisher, Policy-Color, Endpoint> >>>> >>>> Current: >>>> SR Policy SAFI NLRI: <Distinguisher, Color, Endpoint> >>>> >>>> Please review the updated files and let us know if any other updates are >>>> needed. >>>> >>>> --FILES (please refresh)-- >>>> >>>> The files have been posted here: >>>> >>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9830.txt&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662188115%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vC0iW8s0TadcaaKGuTNXsIJZcVbdDwMqzCOGCKcHvRU%3D&reserved=0 >>>> >>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9830.pdf&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662199742%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=X2gd9sVoCh4wcxJHPX6UCrD87Bl1P0Uy8GLAHaWaSGY%3D&reserved=0 >>>> >>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9830.html&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662211038%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=AR0Tms%2Bs0BYPhrK%2FqxVake4f3RVthgsHyTK6vh9ghlg%3D&reserved=0 >>>> >>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9830.xml&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662222042%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=t1zsDJCL3JonCLnznCd%2B34SxH%2BGUiahkNMNlaKKulH8%3D&reserved=0 >>>> >>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here: >>>> >>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9830-diff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662231233%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=x3REJ7pLrF3uA0tJnSqG5NPhWMkMEXF4a4mMz6TgGkU%3D&reserved=0 >>>> >>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9830-rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662241608%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=GIZZnYA9DY2uLNTRljVZKuYBiUaiQSMRVqaWXmWSGgs%3D&reserved=0 >>>> (side by side) >>>> >>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9830-auth48diff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662254077%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=OVu990XgDw9xVLPZ9lK0Caz%2FcHTsQK7L4odpZLpvb8k%3D&reserved=0 >>>> >>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9830-auth48rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662262700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=kx3AMJhoqq17NynXdM2pPF5WzfnSQmn4%2F1HmN6Ypjp0%3D&reserved=0 >>>> (side by side) >>>> >>>> These diff files show only the changes made during the last edit round: >>>> >>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9830-lastdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662270602%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nbpEqt7fkdEK5PgxDOExl2lHtyreg5V0UmXXGAmUTZI%3D&reserved=0 >>>> >>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9830-lastrfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662278846%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BRrFznB74Errfc1SxbzqPis%2BSyBL3pU2hSqCQPdUZZY%3D&reserved=0 >>>> (side by side) >>>> >>>> We will await approvals from each party listed at this document’s AUTH48 >>>> status page >>>> (seehttps://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9830&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662286712%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=LEbzWF0rdNbmQBAfGYmpy%2FPA%2B8AsBic%2FjygeVVYSQ74%3D&reserved=0) >>>> and the completion of AUTH48 of this document’s companion documents (see >>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fcluster_info.php%3Fcid%3DC534&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662294919%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NxzS%2FrWPuPoFutIbPXVpt3pPFeI1wazXtVOkl2j4y4Q%3D&reserved=0) >>>> prior to moving forward in the publication process. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> RFC Editor/kc >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jul 31, 2025, at 5:36 AM, Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Karen, >>>>> >>>>> That one instance left about "long policy name" is also about the "SR >>>>> Policy". >>>>> >>>>> Moreover, the names like Policy Name and Policy Candidate Path name >>>>> should be changed to "SR Policy ..." for consistency. This also applies >>>>> to the TLV/sub-TLV names that have "Policy" in it. The only exception is >>>>> perhaps Figure 1 and its field explanations where we can change "Policy >>>>> Color" to "Color" so it aligns with the "Endpoint" that is used without >>>>> that prefix. >>>>> >>>>> I have reviewed all other changes in the diff and please consider this >>>>> email as my approval for publication. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Ketan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 12:22 AM Karen Moore >>>>> <kmo...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: >>>>> Hi Ketan, >>>>> >>>>> We have made the changes discussed below. Please review the updated >>>>> files and let us know if any further updates are needed or if the current >>>>> text is agreeable. >>>>> >>>>> Note that we left one instance of "policy" here: "The Policy Name sub-TLV >>>>> may exceed 255 bytes in length due to a long policy name". If that is >>>>> not correct and it should be "SR Policy", please let us know. >>>>> >>>>> --FILES (please refresh)-- >>>>> >>>>> The files have been posted here: >>>>> >>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9830.txt&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662305578%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=YeoYKzs%2B08o%2Barz7KMMvWqdX5yBKVaUhInRkXZibClc%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9830.pdf&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662314466%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=v0tuEpS6dl6TTMZjkT8ENlDDMz1F0lpei2UYxeBq7qM%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9830.html&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662325093%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=gPFqquHaH9az3qRIUFV0aqsZgIqBMsA91GlvwEMTO6M%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9830.xml&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662334073%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=XP0%2FhFUTOfeL3XpDLgSXHdHjXryD4KnaBjUVcCud9sA%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here: >>>>> >>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9830-diff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662342489%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=arOvSFuAKjSEWDirZzr08eH5pKg10ghGSCuNNl%2FT9mI%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9830-rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662351753%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=KfstHSUaiO5sC0WfG1TW0MjwjrQsQYNz%2Bli8AOqCHrs%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> (side by side) >>>>> >>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9830-auth48diff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662363581%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=QTg7dEY92VITqmjrqEMiiq227APoBUU8RlGno6%2Fvnzg%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9830-auth48rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662374090%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=zgsaQdRjjvVvZoIVH7lm%2BZERCirse08brTWeURVUFw0%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> (side by side) >>>>> >>>>> These diff files show only the changes made during the last edit round: >>>>> >>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9830-lastdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662384228%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bmU4ICXXe%2Biso2c%2BGdVGQtcnuFh%2FtGWAYIlCH0XJvuo%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9830-lastrfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662393573%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=OBH87PB9Al72fsFW0N7eJHObzxHV%2BlDyqpij8WnzLt0%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> (side by side) >>>>> >>>>> We will await approvals from each party listed at this document’s AUTH48 >>>>> status page >>>>> (seehttps://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9830&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662404848%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xMRCwvhwzEyvO1vrM%2FItEpA5xGuebP3vF%2B9p5AjOKhI%3D&reserved=0) >>>>> and the completion of AUTH48 of this document’s companion documents (see >>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fcluster_info.php%3Fcid%3DC534&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662414916%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=iWDamdBhjiA5BZdzmrkEZsPQsP%2BeUFjxyGkNqsPcqsM%3D&reserved=0) >>>>> prior to moving forward in the publication process. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> RFC Editor/kc >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 27, 2025, at 6:59 AM, Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Megan, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for your response. Please check inline below. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 7:32 PM Megan Ferguson >>>>> <mfergu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: >>>>> Hi Ketan, >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for your reply and guidance! >>>>> >>>>> A few followups below with comments in [rfced]: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> 5) <!--[rfced] Please review the following for how "4 octets" connects >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> the rest of the sentence (perhaps text is missing as we generally >>>>>>> see "octets of foo" in previous descriptions)? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Original: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Weight: 4 octets an unsigned integer value indicating the weight >>>>>>> associated with a segment list... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> KT> It should be "4 octets carrying and unsigned ..." >>>>> >>>>> [rfced] We made this “4 octets carrying an unsigned…” (“an" instead of >>>>> “and"). If this is in error, please let us know. >>>>> >>>>> KT> Agree >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 16) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions related to terminology >>>>>> use throughout the document. >>>>>> >>>>>> a) Should the following terms be made consistent with regard to >>>>>> capitalization, hyphenation, etc.? If so, please let us know how to >>>>>> update. >>>>>> >>>>>> SR Policy vs. SR policy vs. policy >>>>> [rfced] We have not made any updates to uses of simply “policy”. If >>>>> there are places where it should be changed to “SR Policy”, please let us >>>>> know. >>>>> >>>>> KT> Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Except for the following >>>>> instances, all other uses of "policy" should be replaced by "SR Policy" >>>>> for clarity and consistency. There are quite a lot of places where we >>>>> have missed this. >>>>> >>>>> "local policy" or "one possible policy" or "registration policy" ... >>>>> where the use is as in the English word policy and not the technical term >>>>> SR Policy >>>>> "explicit null label policy" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> SR Policy per RFC9256 >>>>>> >>>>>> BGP UPDATE message vs. BGP update message vs. BGP Update >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> BGP UPDATE message per RFC4271 when referring to the message >>>>> >>>>> [rfced] Please carefully review our updates to these and let us know if >>>>> further changes are necessary (as we tried to take clues from the context >>>>> in some places). >>>>> >>>>> KT> Looks good to me >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> [snip] >>>>>> >>>>>> Color vs. color >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> Color >>>>>> >>>>>> Endpoint vs. endpoint >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> endpoint >>>>> >>>>> [rfced] As color and endpoint are often in a tuple and used similarly, we >>>>> wondered if they should be treated the same for capitalization — so we >>>>> ended up capping Endpoint as this also seemed to match the use in RFC >>>>> 9256. Please review the text as it stands and let us know if you would >>>>> like further updates. >>>>> >>>>> KT> The capitalization is correct where Color and Endpoint are used >>>>> together (or SRv6 Endpoint Behavior) - that is a technical term. However, >>>>> there are only a few other places where the word is used as an English >>>>> word and should not be capitalized (e.g. "link endpoints", "endpoint/node >>>>> addresses"). >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> [snip] >>>>>> >>>>>> "Drop Upon Invalid" behavior vs. "drop upon invalid" config >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> Drop-Upon-Invalid per RFC9256 >>>>> >>>>> [rfced] We assume no change from “config” to “behavior” is desired. >>>>> Please correct us if that is in error. Also, please see the related >>>>> updates to the IANA Considerations sections and let us know any >>>>> objections to the changes there (as the name of the I-Flag). >>>>> >>>>> KT> Looks good except that there is still one use of "config" in that >>>>> context that should be changed to "behavior" for consistency. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [rfced] With regard to ENLP (mentioned in both questions 15 and 16 in our >>>>> previous mail), we see variance between the following when we look for >>>>> the sub-TLV name: >>>>> >>>>> ENLP sub-TLV >>>>> Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP) sub-TLV >>>>> >>>>> Please let us know if/how these may be made consistent. >>>>> >>>>> KT> The expanded form should be there on first use (also on section title >>>>> and IANA) and rest of the text we can use the acronym as per usual >>>>> practice. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks again, >>>>> Ketan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> All other requested changes have been incorporated and the files have >>>>> been reposted (please be sure to refresh). >>>>> >>>>> The files have been posted here: >>>>> >>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9830.txt&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662423491%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=X62D9Rwu5vgUiGmdga%2F7MfmLr9V%2Fhd%2BB03MxIOtRT7Y%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9830.pdf&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662431277%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=cx%2Flww7OkK344s8eLSnWUuQvf3qYBKO6CWs62THmulA%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9830.html&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662439166%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=e0FiyC0gv3oiJO%2B5no5ulQiwWoobeIOBPlJPZ4oMHXM%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9830.xml&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662447612%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=jovCX79D4FoVUITgluGkJpNHlOXIizTxFpDgztWgKjg%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here: >>>>> >>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9830-diff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662455860%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=zPr5a6lDfWGn6gYLIf1Xqag0RHCATgfEKVQoMgbB%2F4k%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9830-rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662464946%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6gQU%2FTRCOvgFUYL7dwI2y9mCBCUjpqT7Gjfma0Fxh%2BA%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> (side by side) >>>>> >>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9830-auth48diff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662472728%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5B7KwyDHhrSdTriEhgbZt%2Fj91ZIrQODz9vnf3MHqC4M%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> >>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9830-auth48rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662483339%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=t4TcG13pU3dWJQpYzPie8bR9mCxXxdfqDiuMxJCV6X8%3D&reserved=0 >>>>> (side by side) >>>>> >>>>> Please review carefully as we do not make changes once the document is >>>>> published as an RFC. >>>>> >>>>> We will await the resolution of the issues above, approvals from each >>>>> party listed at this document’s AUTH48 status page (see >>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9830&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662494018%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=KbtDpg6fBesyK8qF2ceOlmcVquPoT6Jj48zSxWXsxX8%3D&reserved=0), >>>>> and the completion of AUTH48 of this document’s companion documents >>>>> (seehttps://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fcluster_info.php%3Fcid%3DC534&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662504043%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=cqnM5MrhapjSPbLfPy%2FhACqZKOwLtUxUNFCkbtGyPX4%3D&reserved=0) >>>>> prior to moving forward in the publication process. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you. >>>>> >>>>> RFC Editor/mf >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 18, 2025, at 11:10 AM, Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Megan, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for your help on this document. Please check inline below for >>>>>> responses. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 4:33 AM <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] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in >>>>>> the title) for use on >>>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fsearch&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662512225%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=kWSjUF%2BLSixNEKZrHecYO44iKshHy2oELN3ShhAuL%2B0%3D&reserved=0. >>>>>> --> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2) <!--[rfced] Should "itself" be "themselves"? If neither of the >>>>>> following capture your intended meaning, please rephrase. >>>>>> >>>>>> Original: >>>>>> Alternatively, a BGP egress router may advertise SR Policies that >>>>>> represent paths terminating on itself. >>>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps A: >>>>>> Alternatively, a BGP egress router may advertise SR Policies that >>>>>> represent paths terminating on themselves. >>>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps B: >>>>>> Alternatively, a BGP egress router may advertise SR Policies that >>>>>> represent paths that terminate on it. >>>>>> >>>>>> --> >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> Option B is better. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 3) <!--[rfced] The following sentence is long and difficult to parse. In >>>>>> particular, what is being made unique? How may we rephrase? >>>>>> >>>>>> Original: >>>>>> The distinguisher has no semantic value and is solely used by the SR >>>>>> Policy originator to make unique (from an NLRI perspective) both for >>>>>> multiple candidate paths of the same SR Policy as well as candidate >>>>>> paths of different SR Policies (i.e. with different segment lists) >>>>>> with the same Color and Endpoint but meant for different headends. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> How about the following? >>>>>> >>>>>> The distinguisher has no semantic value. It is used by the SR Policy >>>>>> originator to form unique NLRIs in the following situations: >>>>>> - to differentiate multiple candidate paths of the same SR Policy >>>>>> - to differentiate candidate paths meant for different headends but >>>>>> having the same Color and Endpoint >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> --> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] We note that [RFC4456] uses the term "ORIGINATOR_ID" >>>>>> rather than "Originator ID". Please review and let us know if any >>>>>> updates are necessary. --> >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> Yes, please update to match RFC4456 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 5) <!--[rfced] Please review the following for how "4 octets" connects to >>>>>> the rest of the sentence (perhaps text is missing as we generally >>>>>> see "octets of foo" in previous descriptions)? >>>>>> >>>>>> Original: >>>>>> >>>>>> Weight: 4 octets an unsigned integer value indicating the weight >>>>>> associated with a segment list... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> --> >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> It should be "4 octets carrying and unsigned ..." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 6) <!--[rfced] Please clarify "it" in the following text: >>>>>> >>>>>> Original: >>>>>> >>>>>> If one or more route targets are present and none matches the local >>>>>> BGP Identifier, then, while the SR Policy NLRI is valid, it is not >>>>>> usable on the receiver node. >>>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps: >>>>>> >>>>>> If one or more route targets are present, and none matches the >>>>>> local BGP Identifier, then, while the SR Policy NLRI is valid, the >>>>>> route targets are not usable on the receiver node. >>>>>> --> >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> It should be (but please feel free to improve): >>>>>> >>>>>> If one or more route targets are present, and none matches the >>>>>> local BGP Identifier, then, while the SR Policy NLRI is valid, the SR >>>>>> Policy NLRI is not usable on the receiver node. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 7) <!--[rfced] We note that the IANA Considerations section (Section 6) >>>>>> starts with a summary of all of the actions that follow in the >>>>>> subsections. We had a few questions/comments related to this >>>>>> section: >>>>>> >>>>>> a) Note that we have consolidated mentions of the registry group names >>>>>> in the introductory text for each type of action in order to reduce >>>>>> redundancy. Please review these changes and let us know any >>>>>> objections. >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> Looks good to me >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> b) To further reduce redundancy, might it be agreeable to delete the >>>>>> registry group names from the subsections that follow? They were used >>>>>> inconsistently in the original, and the reader would be able to find >>>>>> that information in Section 6 itself if desired. >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> I would check on this with the IANA team on their preference >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> c) Would you like to add section pointers to the corresponding >>>>>> subsections where the actions are further described? >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> I don't think this is necessary as they are easy to locate just by >>>>>> looking at the index. However, there is no concern if they were included >>>>>> as well. I would go with your recommendation. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> d) Please note that any changes to text that appears in any IANA >>>>>> registries mentioned in this document will be communicated to IANA by >>>>>> the RPC prior to publication but after the completion of AUTH48. >>>>>> --> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 8) <!--[rfced] We had a few questions regarding Section 6.1 and the BGP >>>>>> SAFI Code Point: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> a) We received the following note from IANA. We do not see mention of >>>>>> this update in the IANA Considerations section of this document. >>>>>> Should anything be added? >>>>>> >>>>>> IANA's Note: >>>>>> NOTE: We've also updated the associated iana-routing-types YANG module >>>>>> to reflect the new description and enum variable. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please see >>>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fiana-routing-types&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662520858%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=QSRrp8LSVXZQRT4QEFkTPFpNYSh5VqJiVng63xXowEA%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> This looks like an action that IANA does on its own when something >>>>>> new gets added to the IANA SAFI registry group. Please check the note >>>>>> inhttps://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fsafi-namespace%2Fsafi-namespace.xhtml&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662529453%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Gd1%2B%2FMFmU7o%2FJyrPFWv1t0ym6ugx%2B7nngjqDDqxDt1A%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> and as such this document does not need to say anything in this regard. >>>>>> I am happy to be corrected by the IANA team. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> b) We don't see any mention of "BGP" in the corresponding IANA >>>>>> registry. Should the title of Table 1 be updated? >>>>>> >>>>>> Currently in the document: >>>>>> Table 1: BGP SAFI Code Point >>>>>> >>>>>> At >>>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fsafi-namespace%2Fsafi-namespace.xhtml&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662538149%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=q01ecHD3MY2aE%2FHhIVILypxdwGE2B%2BVSsYdTmRPAFrA%3D&reserved=0: >>>>>> SR Policy SAFI >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> I think what we have currently looks good to me. Please let me know >>>>>> if the IANA team feels otherwise. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> c) The title of this section is "Subsequent Address Family Identifiers >>>>>> (SAFI) Parameters". This is the title of registry group. Subsequent >>>>>> subsections in the document are titled using the subregistry. Should >>>>>> the title of Section 6.1 be updated to "SAFI Values"? >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> This is related to (7)(b) and I would let the IANA team take the >>>>>> call if a change is needed. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> --> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 9) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions/comments regarding Section >>>>>> 6.3: >>>>>> >>>>>> a) We note that the corresponding IANA registry >>>>>> (https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fbgp-tunnel-encapsulation%2Fbgp-tunnel-encapsulation.xhtml%23tunnel-sub-tlvs&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662546269%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=S%2F9TM7rJ39PsYjd2KRBX%2Bt0g1OxrlV5gsuHUuG2cnJs%3D&reserved=0) >>>>>> also has a "Change Controller" column in which some of the code points >>>>>> listed by this document contain information (i.e., IETF). Should any >>>>>> mention of this be made in Table 3? >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> Yes please - IETF is the change controller for all of them. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> b) Please review our update to the title of Table 3 and let us know >>>>>> any objections. >>>>>> >>>>>> Original: >>>>>> >>>>>> Table 3: BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Code Points >>>>>> >>>>>> Current: >>>>>> >>>>>> Table 3: BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLV Code Points >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> Ack >>>>>> >>>>>> --> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 10) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions/comments related to Table >>>>>> 5: >>>>>> >>>>>> a) Please review our update to the title to include "Sub-TLV". >>>>>> >>>>>> Original: >>>>>> Table 5: SR Policy Segment List Code Points >>>>>> >>>>>> Current: >>>>>> Table 5: SR Policy Segment List Sub-TLV Code Points >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> Ack >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> b) We note that Table 5 includes "Segment Type A sub-TLV". Elsewhere >>>>>> in the document, we see "Type A Segment Sub-TLV" (note the word order >>>>>> change). Further, we see >>>>>> Type-1 (using a hyphen while lettered types do not). Please review >>>>>> all of these differences and let us know if/how these should be made >>>>>> consistent. >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> The names of the segments (titles) are to be "Segment Type X" while >>>>>> the name of the sub-TLVs are to be "Type X Segment sub-TLV" (I've seen >>>>>> both sub-TLV and Sub-TLV - either is OK but we should have been >>>>>> consistent). The "Type-1" is actually "Type A Segment sub-TLV". >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> c) In the document, we see points 3-8 as "Unassigned". At >>>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fbgp-tunnel-encapsulation%2Fbgp-tunnel-encapsulation.xhtml%23color-extended-community-flags&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662556805%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=R7U8h3LFcxXCG3Uh2XCxzJaFRf6fhJevG%2B3XYGATy0Q%3D&reserved=0, >>>>>> we see Segment Type C - Type H sub-TLVs. The same is true for points >>>>>> 14-16 (this document includes them in the 14-255 "Unassigned"). >>>>>> Please review and let us know what, if any, updates are necessary. >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> I don't think any update is necessary as they were not assigned by >>>>>> this document but the other draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext which is >>>>>> also in the RFC Editor Q. Please do cross-check with IANA as well though. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> --> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 11) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions/comments regarding Section >>>>>> 6.8 and the corresponding IANA registry at >>>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fbgp-tunnel-encapsulation%2Fbgp-tunnel-encapsul&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662566581%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WNg%2FEqHiasF%2FWLch5VoZoliHaoYnV3%2B7pNDpeRCYfyo%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> ation.xhtml#sr-policy-segment-flags: >>>>>> >>>>>> a) This document lists Bits 1-2 as "Unassigned" while the IANA >>>>>> registry lists entries for these values (the A-Flag and S-Flag). >>>>>> Please review and let us know what, if any, updates need to be made >>>>>> for consistency. >>>>>> >>>>>> --> >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> This too is related to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext and so it >>>>>> is the same as the previous comment. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 12) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions/comments related to >>>>>> Section >>>>>> 6.10 and its corresponding registry at: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fsegment-routing%2Fsegment-routing.xhtml%23sr-policy-enlp-values&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662574702%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=MxmHLLG%2FOrOjp9am5zT0AziwzWGqWivcr3BhUmGIKNE%3D&reserved=0: >>>>>> >>>>>> a) There is a slight difference in the Description of Code Point 0. >>>>>> Please let us know if/how these may be made consistent. >>>>>> >>>>>> This document: >>>>>> Reserved (not to be used) >>>>>> >>>>>> IANA registry: >>>>>> Reserved >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> We can make it "Reserved" >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> --> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 13) <!--[rfced] In the following, how may we update to correct the >>>>>> connection between "address families" and "SAFI"? If our >>>>>> suggested text does not correctly capture your intent, please let >>>>>> us know how to rephrase. >>>>>> >>>>>> Original: >>>>>> BGP peering sessions for address-families other than SR Policy SAFI >>>>>> may be set up to routers outside the SR domain. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps: >>>>>> BGP peering sessions for address families other than those that use >>>>>> the SR Policy SAFI may be set up to routers outside the SR domain. >>>>>> >>>>>> --> >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> Ack >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 14) <!--[rfced] We note that this document has an Informative Reference >>>>>> entry to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-07, which is moving >>>>>> through the RFC Editor queue simultaneously. >>>>>> >>>>>> We have updated this reference entry to use its RFC-to-be form as we >>>>>> assume the intent is to publish them together. >>>>>> >>>>>> However, since this dependency is not normative, please indicate if >>>>>> your preference is not to wait (if >>>>>> draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-07 has not completed AUTH48 prior >>>>>> to this document; in which case, we would revert to the I-D version of >>>>>> the reference entry). --> >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> I would prefer to process them together for publication. They were a >>>>>> single document and the authors were made to split them. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 15) <!-- [rfced] We had the following questions/comments related to >>>>>> abbreviation use throughout the document: >>>>>> >>>>>> a) FYI - We have added expansions for abbreviations upon first use per >>>>>> Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each >>>>>> expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> Please change [SR-BGP-LS] to [BGP-LS-SR-POLICY]. Everything else >>>>>> looks good to me. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> b) We will update to have the abbreviation expanded upon first use and >>>>>> then use the abbreviation thereafter (per the guidance at >>>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fstyleguide%2Fpart2%2F%23exp_abbrev&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662583032%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NfQZ8hEE1xzzNRs%2FY9k9Zz40eNjLjl6Rt6GZXy2cOok%3D&reserved=0) >>>>>> *except when >>>>>> in a sub-TLV name* for the following abbreviations unless we hear >>>>>> objection. >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> Ack >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Segment Routing (SR) >>>>>> candidate path (CP) >>>>>> subsequent address family (SAFI) >>>>>> Route Reflectors (RR) >>>>>> Binding SID (BSID) >>>>>> Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP) >>>>>> >>>>>> c) May we expand NH as Next Hop? >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> Yes >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> --> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 16) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions related to terminology >>>>>> use throughout the document. >>>>>> >>>>>> a) Should the following terms be made consistent with regard to >>>>>> capitalization, hyphenation, etc.? If so, please let us know how to >>>>>> update. >>>>>> >>>>>> SR Policy vs. SR policy vs. policy >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> SR Policy per RFC9256 >>>>>> >>>>>> BGP UPDATE message vs. BGP update message vs. BGP Update >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> BGP UPDATE message per RFC4271 when referring to the message >>>>>> >>>>>> Route Target Extended Community vs. route target extended community >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> Route Target extended community >>>>>> >>>>>> Tunnel Type vs. Tunnel-Type vs. Tunnel-type >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> Tunnel Type >>>>>> >>>>>> Flags field vs. Flag octect (singular and field vs. octet) >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> Flags field >>>>>> >>>>>> Color vs. color >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> Color >>>>>> >>>>>> Endpoint vs. endpoint >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> endpoint >>>>>> >>>>>> Length field vs. length field (and simply length) >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> Length field >>>>>> >>>>>> "Drop Upon Invalid" behavior vs. "drop upon invalid" config >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> Drop-Upon-Invalid per RFC9256 >>>>>> >>>>>> Segment Type vs. segment type vs. Segment Types sub-TLV (plural) >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> That would vary by context - capitalized when referring to the name >>>>>> and lowercase otherwise >>>>>> >>>>>> Explicit NULL Label vs. Explicit NULL label >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> That would vary by context - same as the previous one >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> b) We see that some field names are in double quotes. Should this be >>>>>> made uniform throughout? If so, are quotation marks or no quotation >>>>>> marks preferred? >>>>>> >>>>>> For example: >>>>>> "Flags" field vs. Flags field >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> I think we can skip the quotes. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> --> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 17) <!--[rfced] Please review uses of the slash character "/" in the body >>>>>> of the document and consider whether "and", "or", or "and/or" >>>>>> might be clearer for the reader. --> >>>>>> >>>>>> KT> No change is needed - they are clear to the reader in the respective >>>>>> context >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 18) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the >>>>>> online Style Guide >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fstyleguide%2Fpart2%2F%23inclusive_language&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662591281%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=A9uSst0WF26gb7vCAbFJcej58eZuHEmfBjRfvaPTNxk%3D&reserved=0> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Ketan >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>> >>>>>> RFC Editor/mf >>>>>> >>>>>> *****IMPORTANT***** >>>>>> >>>>>> Updated 2025/07/16 >>>>>> >>>>>> 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://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ffaq%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662599597%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=X7tpRLys6U4JaNpbpDTt0H7GhjRTS96GU0wmKGI4Zp0%3D&reserved=0). >>>>>> >>>>>> 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://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftrustee.ietf.org%2Flicense-info&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662607914%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8d0nHgD5YfGLZ6mpqPc%2F8ocatmxCIaTH6Cbhe7jAu7Q%3D&reserved=0). >>>>>> >>>>>> * 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://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fauthors.ietf.org%2Frfcxml-vocabulary&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662617425%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fSqsImBu1ZQOm0v7T1L90xKKIXL%2Bfe5uM%2FG3Zxixm%2BI%3D&reserved=0>. >>>>>> >>>>>> * 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://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fietf-announce%2Fyb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662630199%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VyrJOTd4PA2m%2BRJrg4cNLnTCULDgUelXC7Um1T4DNUI%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>>> * The archive itself: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fbrowse%2Fauth48archive%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662642869%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=1mUUCrr7VDtbv0bRCnH%2B2qDIzyPuONPoJ8rswJ%2Bg4lk%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>>> * 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://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9830.xml&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662651883%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Wd7HIOOH37LyqvjUDDB4M4j5I9fdyDMMaF3CdfUISTc%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9830.html&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662661193%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3Apw8Q795EmP8q7BEE9oOWA%2BakzFYt4sne9sBu9QZJA%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9830.pdf&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662669754%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hWUYrauVXlnR93AVGrPWH9qfLDtOZNXd1e5mw2q5Io4%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9830.txt&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662678790%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fMe91N3sPIcXC8OqRwGFILVFV%2Fg3Ez3Lb3o8SZIxYqI%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>>> Diff file of the text: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9830-diff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260662689139%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=eKXBk0qBot8H5DoGY1pbzHwMrDfnP0cAGbPAyUNjaRE%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9830-rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260663042002%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=HrKkIayh4Spb8CpJZZ6UT%2FeBzj0YO4aOlzo3sELkcWk%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> (side by side) >>>>>> >>>>>> Diff of the XML: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9830-xmldiff1.html&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260663059900%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sPPgpl2nnyYSNqESF%2Br2xqEqFCBjCMYTlC3OWbiSOWA%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Tracking progress >>>>>> ----------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9830&data=05%7C02%7Cpamattes%40microsoft.com%7C74d814640ab44129b00508ddd37e0233%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638899260663071839%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6Bbxz8xORIQsFqNsViTOKLa7cpuyeZcw8hAis8idSik%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you for your cooperation, >>>>>> >>>>>> RFC Editor >>>>>> >>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>> RFC9830 (draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-13) >>>>>> >>>>>> Title : Advertising Segment Routing Policies in BGP >>>>>> Author(s) : S. Previdi, C. Filsfils, K. Talaulikar, P. Mattes, D. >>>>>> Jain >>>>>> 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
