Hi RFC Editor, all
Thanks for the document. Please find below some comments. Some comments are beyond editorial (§7.1, §5.4). Someone please review and ack. §5 In figure 1, the link/line from R2 to N1 is significantly offset from N1. It looks doable to better align the link & N1 OLD: S ------- N1 ----------- D *\ | \ | * \ | \ | * \ | \ | * N2-----R1****R2 *** R3 * * N3 ********* NEW: S --------- N1 --------- D *\ | \ | * \ | \ | * \ | \ | * N2----- R1***R2 *** R3 * * N3 ********** ---- §5.4 OLD: post- convergence NEW: post-convergence --- §5.4 OLD: As mentioned in Section 3<https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855.html#base>, a list of adjacency SIDs can be used to encode the path between P and Q. However, the PLR can perform additional computations to compute a list of segments that represent a loop-free path from P to Q. Problem: "a list of adjacency SIDs" _is_ (already) "a list of segments". Proposed NEW: As mentioned in Section 3<https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855.html#base>, a list of adjacency SIDs can be used to encode the path between P and Q. However, the PLR can perform additional computations to compute a shorter list of segments that represent a loop-free path from P to Q. (+ 'shorter') Alternatively, we could introduce the term "node SIDs' to explicit the difference compared to the list of adjacency SIDs, but this may be harder to phrase and less general. e.g, Proposed NEW2: As mentioned in Section 3<https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855.html#base>, a list of adjacency SIDs can be used to encode the path between P and Q. However, the PLR can perform additional computations to compute a list of node and adjacency segments that represent a loop-free path from P to Q. --- §7.1 OLD: If the active segment is a node segment that has been signaled with penultimate hop popping, and the repair list ends with an adjacency segment terminating on a node that advertised the "NEXT" operation [RFC8402<https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855.html#RFC8402>] of the active segment, then the active segment MUST be popped before pushing the repair list. Problem: the penultimate does not really "advertise' the NEXT operation. (penultimate of popping is advertised by the ultimate node) Proposed NEW: If the active segment is a node segment that has been signaled with penultimate hop popping, and the repair list ends with an adjacency segment terminating on the penultimate node of the active segment, then the active segment MUST be popped before pushing the repair list. --- Appendix A OLD: H --- I --- J | | \ PE4 | | PE3 \ | (L) | / A --- X --- B --- G / | | \ PE1 | | PE2 \ | | / C --- D --- E --- F NEW: H --- I --- J * | | * PE4 | | PE3 \ | (L) | * * A --- X --- B --- G * * | | * PE1 | | PE2 * | | * * C --- D --- E --- F * Note: * "In Figure 3, we consider a network with all metrics equal to 1 except the metrics on links used by PE1, PE2, and PE3, which are 1000." * In all other Figures (1 & 2), we used a convention to use "**" for the links having the high metric. I'd propose that we do the same convention for Figure 3. --- Appendix A "Another consideration to take into account is as follows: While using the expected post-convergence path" I'm not familiar with English typographic rules, but I would not have expected an upper case "W" for "While" -- Appendix A OLD: The measurement below indicates that, for link and local SRLG protection, a 1-SID repair path delivers more than 99% coverage. For node protection, a 2-SID repair path yields 99% coverage. [...] The measurements listed in the tables indicate that for link and local SRLG protection, a 1-SID repair path is sufficient to protect more than 99% of the prefix in almost all cases. For node protection, 2-SID repair paths yield 99% coverage. This seems like a duplicate. I would suggest removing the second paragraph. NEW: The measurement below indicates that, for link and local SRLG protection, a 1-SID repair path delivers more than 99% coverage. For node protection, a 2-SID repair path yields 99% coverage. In addition, text is not strictly correct. It's not "a 1-SID repair path" but "a 1-SID or less repair path. Idem for "2-SID. Hence NEW2: The measurement below indicates that, for link and local SRLG protection, a 1-SID or less repair path delivers more than 99% coverage. For node protection, a 2-SID or less repair path yields 99% coverage. Feel free to reword in a better way. -- Appendix A Nit picking... I would propose OLD: 100.0% NEW: 100% (in all tables) (as it's mathematically not possible to go beyond 100%, the extra decimal digit is useless, while slightly reduce readability) Thanks, Best regards, --Bruno -----Original Message----- From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2025 6:19 PM To: abashandy.i...@gmail.com; slitk...@cisco.com; cfils...@cisco.com; pierre.franc...@insa-lyon.fr; DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET <bruno.decra...@orange.com>; daniel.vo...@bell.ca Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org; rtgwg-...@ietf.org; rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org; stewart.bry...@gmail.com; james.n.guich...@futurewei.com; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org Subject: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9855 <draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-21> for your review -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CAUTION : This email originated outside the company. Do not click on any links or open attachments unless you are expecting them from the sender. ATTENTION : Cet e-mail provient de l'extérieur de l'entreprise. Ne cliquez pas sur les liens ou n'ouvrez pas les pièces jointes à moins de connaitre l'expéditeur. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/09/04 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://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ffaq%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cbruno.decraene%40orange.com%7Cda00a0a7bc1a4f0161ac08ddebcf125d%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638925997045638408%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=9vsYYZiZnmxKeQx8w%2FlEWhdSGVSlF%2B6deSjyiY%2FlyDM%3D&reserved=0<https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/>). You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing your approval. Planning your review --------------------- Please review the following aspects of your document: * RFC Editor questions Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as follows: <!-- [rfced] ... --> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. * Changes submitted by coauthors Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. * Content Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) - contact information - references * Copyright notices and legends Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions (TLP - https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftrustee.ietf.org%2Flicense-info&data=05%7C02%7Cbruno.decraene%40orange.com%7Cda00a0a7bc1a4f0161ac08ddebcf125d%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638925997045659096%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=z5Nfxu6wX5%2FR9ipFmIkoOUwEmRvAVBU%2BL4PuJITPgec%3D&reserved=0<https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info>). * Semantic markup Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at <https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fauthors.ietf.org%2Frfcxml-vocabulary&data=05%7C02%7Cbruno.decraene%40orange.com%7Cda00a0a7bc1a4f0161ac08ddebcf125d%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638925997045673271%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=MgAyZnXIQm5u%2FNfd%2FYULIVyrYf0tWGM1plPg50JnYec%3D&reserved=0<https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>>. * Formatted output Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. Submitting changes ------------------ To submit changes, please reply to this email using 'REPLY ALL' as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties include: * your coauthors * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org<mailto: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<mailto: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://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fietf-announce%2Fyb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc&data=05%7C02%7Cbruno.decraene%40orange.com%7Cda00a0a7bc1a4f0161ac08ddebcf125d%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638925997045686852%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2EISLvhVF4tq9xwgmBAwCq29GS47TqFvrkY2U3tWoos%3D&reserved=0<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc> * The archive itself: https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fbrowse%2Fauth48archive%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cbruno.decraene%40orange.com%7Cda00a0a7bc1a4f0161ac08ddebcf125d%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638925997045700202%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=jHYqLZqzTj44usH85JiW4zN05s01N03slGT46KBw9QY%3D&reserved=0<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/> * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org<mailto: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://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9855.xml&data=05%7C02%7Cbruno.decraene%40orange.com%7Cda00a0a7bc1a4f0161ac08ddebcf125d%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638925997045713513%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=B4o8nySAgYeekd8ZuoQ8lPOkPDPOyubGsNEZK6%2FNhVc%3D&reserved=0<https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855.xml> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9855.html&data=05%7C02%7Cbruno.decraene%40orange.com%7Cda00a0a7bc1a4f0161ac08ddebcf125d%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638925997045728164%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ADg1ezghpOG4q%2FdRazVPQj8k7rQoc19IL%2BifVMVzjTM%3D&reserved=0<https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855.html> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9855.pdf&data=05%7C02%7Cbruno.decraene%40orange.com%7Cda00a0a7bc1a4f0161ac08ddebcf125d%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638925997045742263%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2FRsUHA%2FCiBTjL6iEEdzq2qhSW4JO68kEqyxRUcfDCY%3D&reserved=0<https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855.pdf> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9855.txt&data=05%7C02%7Cbruno.decraene%40orange.com%7Cda00a0a7bc1a4f0161ac08ddebcf125d%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638925997045755927%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=SvKuPeMqKIF7a601QcMyWCJxPQYdgNoJTPj6w%2F8udTk%3D&reserved=0<https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855.txt> Diff file of the text: https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9855-diff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cbruno.decraene%40orange.com%7Cda00a0a7bc1a4f0161ac08ddebcf125d%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638925997045769827%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=IPKh9v5tpCPVcqvOk6g5OK9CV81uZCTXRbISF09fWqI%3D&reserved=0<https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855-diff.html> https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9855-rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cbruno.decraene%40orange.com%7Cda00a0a7bc1a4f0161ac08ddebcf125d%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638925997045783341%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=tw7mHA13Kzz%2B9b3G04vy6O5i9kW5%2BGSvCH9HodY8KhY%3D&reserved=0<https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855-rfcdiff.html> (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9855-xmldiff1.html&data=05%7C02%7Cbruno.decraene%40orange.com%7Cda00a0a7bc1a4f0161ac08ddebcf125d%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638925997045796937%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=7cjnhHXYgZ5QluoRFYi%2BFdo9k2GskehmIsUq7ZkY1LM%3D&reserved=0<https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9855-xmldiff1.html> Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9855&data=05%7C02%7Cbruno.decraene%40orange.com%7Cda00a0a7bc1a4f0161ac08ddebcf125d%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638925997045810543%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yr%2FULTTZDFPS7yLs0ZaeK7OnKyR%2BOR6HWg6fmpG3RYw%3D&reserved=0<https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9855> Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC9855 (draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-21) Title : Topology Independent Fast Reroute using Segment Routing Author(s) : A. Bashandy, S. Litkowski, C. Filsfils, P. Francois, B. Decraene, D. Voyer WG Chair(s) : Jeff Tantsura, Yingzhen Qu Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter Van de Velde ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
