Authors, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file.
1) <!-- [rfced] Would you like the references to be alphabetized or left in their current order? --> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> 3) <!--[rfced] For clarity, should "the Join" be updated to "the Join packet"? Original: If the nodes do not understand the RPF Vector attribute in the PIM Join packet, then it must discard the RPF Vector attribute because failing to remove the RPF Vectors could cause upstream nodes to send the Join back toward these nodes causing loops. Perhaps: If the nodes do not understand the RPF Vector Attribute in the PIM Join packet, then they must discard the RPF Vector Attribute because failing to remove the RPF Vectors could cause upstream nodes to send the Join packet back toward these nodes causing loops. --> 4) <!-- [rfced] To avoid using an RFC as an adjective, may we update the instances of "[RFC7431] MoFRR" in the text below as follows? Original: However, the [RFC7431] MoFRR mechanism, which selects the secondary multicast next-hop based solely on the loop-free alternate fast reroute defined in [RFC7431], has limitations in certain multicast deployment scenarios (see Section 2). ... Consequently, the [RFC7431] MoFRR functionality in PIM is applicable only in network topologies where LFA is feasible. ... The limitations of the [RFC7431] MoFRR applicability can be illustrated using the example network depicted in Figure 1. ... In this scenario, the [RFC7431] MoFRR operates effectively. ... In this case, the [RFC7431] MoFRR cannot calculate a secondary UMH. Similarly, for multicast source S3 and receiver R, the [RFC7431] MoFRR mechanism is ineffective. ... For instance, in the network illustrated in Figure 1, the secondary path for the PIM Join packet towards multicast source S2 cannot be computed by [RFC7431] MoFRR, as previously described. Perhaps: However, the MoFRR mechanism [RFC7431], which selects the secondary... ... Consequently, the MoFRR functionality [RFC7431] in PIM is applicable... ... The limitations of the MoFRR applicability [RFC7431] can be illustrated... ... In this scenario, MoFRR [RFC7431] operates effectively. ... In this case, MoFRR [RFC7431] cannot calculate a secondary UMH. Similarly, for multicast source S3 and receiver R, the MoFRR mechanism [RFC7431] is ineffective. ... For instance, in the network illustrated in Figure 1, the secondary path for the PIM Join packet towards multicast source S2 cannot be computed by MoFRR [RFC7431], as previously described. --> 5) <!-- [rfced] We note that the following terminology appears to be used inconsistently throughout the document. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how they may be made consistent. Node SID vs. NodeSID Segment List vs. segment list --> 6) <!-- [rfced] 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. Reverse Path Forwarding (RPF) Remote LFA (RLFA) PIM - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) --> 7) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. a) For example, please consider whether "native" should be updated in the text below: This mechanism is applicable to PIM networks, including cases where PIM operates natively over IP in Segment Routing (SR) networks. b) In addition, please consider whether "tradition" should be updated for clarity. While the NIST website <https://web.archive.org/web/20250214092458/https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructions#table1> indicates that this term is potentially biased, it is also ambiguous. "Tradition" is a subjective term, as it is not the same for everyone: However, the traditional LFA does not function properly for the secondary path because the shortest path to R2 from R5 (or from R4) still traverses the R6-R2 link. --> Thank you. Kaelin Foody and Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center On Sep 15, 2025, at 2:55 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/09/15 RFC Author(s): -------------- Instructions for Completing AUTH48 Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing your approval. Planning your review --------------------- Please review the following aspects of your document: * RFC Editor questions Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as follows: <!-- [rfced] ... --> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. * Changes submitted by coauthors Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. * Content Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) - contact information - references * Copyright notices and legends Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). * Semantic markup Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. * Formatted output Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. Submitting changes ------------------ To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties include: * your coauthors * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team) * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion list: * More info: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc * The archive itself: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and its addition will be noted at the top of the message. You may submit your changes in one of two ways: An update to the provided XML file — OR — An explicit list of changes in this format Section # (or indicate Global) OLD: old text NEW: new text You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit list of changes, as either form is sufficient. We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. Approving for publication -------------------------- To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. Files ----- The files are available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9860.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9860.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9860.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9860.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9860-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9860-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9860-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9860 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC9860 (draft-ietf-pim-mofrr-tilfa-14) Title : Multicast-only Fast Reroute Based on Topology Independent Loop-free Alternate (TI-LFA) Fast Reroute Author(s) : Y. Liu, M. McBride, Z. Zhang, J. Xie, C. Lin WG Chair(s) : Stig Venaas, Mike McBride 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
