Hi Jeff and *John (AD), Thank you for providing your approval of the document; we have noted it here <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9857>. We now await approvals from Hannes, Jie, and Stefano.
*John, please review the following updates and let us know if you approve. The changes can be reviewed here: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9857-auth48diff.html>. 1) Update to the description of “V-Flag” in Section 5.3 (added “MUST”) 2) Updates to Table 1 in Section 5.7.1.1 to match the descriptions in RFCs 9256, 9830, and 9831 3) Updates to Table 6 in Section 8.5 (FYI: updates will be needed to the "BGP-LS SR Segment Descriptor Types” IANA registry at <https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/>) 4) Updates to the titles of Sections 5.7.1.1.1 - 5.7.1.1.11 to more closely match Table 6 —Files (please refresh)— Updated XML file: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9857.xml Updated output files: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9857.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9857.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9857.html Diff files showing all changes made during AUTH48: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9857-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9857-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff files showing only changes made during the last editing round: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9857-lastdiff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9857-lastrfcdiff.html Diff files showing all changes: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9857-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9857-rfcdiff.html (side by side) For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9857 Best regards, Karen Moore RFC Production Center > On Sep 16, 2025, at 7:56 AM, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Karen, > > Approved. > Thanks! > > Cheers, > Jeff > >> On Sep 15, 2025, at 13:00, Karen Moore <kmo...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: >> >> Hi Ketan, >> >> Thank you for the clarifications. We have updated 2 instances of “RESERVED” >> as advised in Section 5.7 and have updated Table 1 to match the descriptions >> in RFCs 9256, 9830, and 9831. Please review. We have also noted your >> approval of the document. >> >> If any further updates are needed in Sections 5.7.1.1.1 - 5.7.1.1.11 to more >> closely match the wording/changes in Table 1, please let us know. >> >> Note that we await approvals of the document from all coauthors listed at >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9857 prior to moving forward with >> publicaiton. >> >> —Files (please refresh)— >> >> Updated XML file: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9857.xml >> >> Updated output files: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9857.txt >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9857.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9857.html >> >> Diff files showing all changes made during AUTH48: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9857-auth48diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9857-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> >> Diff files showing only changes made during the last editing round: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9857-lastdiff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9857-lastrfcdiff.html >> >> Diff files showing all changes: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9857-diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9857-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> >> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9857 >> >> Best regards, >> >> Karen Moore >> RFC Production Center >> >> >> >> On Sep 14, 2025, at 8:18 PM, Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Karen, >> >> Please check inline below for responses. >> >> Besides the comment below about Table 1, there is only one minor update >> needed: For the fields that were marked as RESERVED1 and 2 in the figures, >> please make the same change in the individual field descriptions below those >> figures as well. >> >> Once these are taken care of, please consider this email as my approval for >> publication. >> >> >> On Sat, Sep 13, 2025 at 5:35 AM Karen Moore <kmo...@staff.rfc-editor.org> >> wrote: >> Hi Ketan, >> >> Thank you for your comment and close review of the questions/document. We >> have updated our files per your suggestions. Please note that we have a few >> additional questions. >> >> 1) Regarding the comments below, we updated the titles of Sections 5.7.1.1.1 >> - 5.7.1.1.11 accordingly. We also updated the descriptions in Table 6, which >> we agree will align better with RFCs-to-be 9830 and 9831. Please review to >> ensure the changes are correct. >> >> KT> Ack >> >>> Comparing this to RFC9830/1, the Table 1 is what is listed >>> in https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9830.html#section-2.4.4.2 and >>> Table 6 is what is listed in >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9831.html#section-3.1 - more >>> specifically, I would prefer >>> that we have alignment for the Table 1 column Segment Description with the >>> other two RFCs >>> with one change that we want to keep the (Type X) as a prefix in this >>> document. >>> >>> KT> There is no change required for Table 1, however, we can and perhaps >>> should >> >>> change the section titles 5.7.1.1.1 through 5.7.1.1.11 to reflect RFC9830 >>> sections >>> 2.4.4.2.1 - 2.4.4.22 and RFC9831 sections 2.1 through 2.10. >>> >>> As an example: Type 1: SR-MPLS Label (Type A) -> Type 1: Segment Type A >>> >>> This will make the section headings short and align with the other two RFCs >>> that specify >>> the southbound BGP signaling while this document specifies its northbound >>> reporting. >>> >>> The titles for figures are ok. >>> >>> The descriptions can then be changed along the lines of >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9831.html#section-3.1 >>> >>> As an example: (Type A) SR-MPLS Label -> Type A Segment >>> >>> Please let me know your views from the perspective of readability and >>> alignment across RFC9256 and >>> the 3 BGP RFCs under RFC Editor currently including this document. >> >> 2) It was mentioned that no changes were required for Table 1 - want to >> clarify if that is still the case or if any further updates are needed for >> consistency with the wording/style in Table 2 of RFC 9256. >> >> KT> The descriptions originate from >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9256.html#table-2 and so, we should try to >> make things consistent with that. The same is there in >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9830#section-2.4.4.2 and >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9831#section-2 - therefore, the Table 1 >> descriptions should be the same. The only exception is that the alphabetical >> Type is indicated in brackets to provide the necessary correlation between >> the two separate code point spaces. I hope this also covers the queries >> below. >> >> Thanks, >> Ketan >> >> >> >> Please also consider the following. >> >> a) Section 5.7.1.1.6 describes the IPv4 Local & Remote Interface Addresses >> as a “pair”; is “pair" correct to add to the description of Type F in Table >> 1? >> >> Current: >> (Type F) SR-MPLS Adjacency SID as IPv4 Local & Remote Interface Addresses >> >> Perhaps A: >> (Type F) SR-MPLS Adjacency SID as pair of IPv4 Local & Remote Interface >> Addresses >> >> Perhaps B (in attempt to follow the style of RFC 9256): >> (Type F) IPv4 Interface Addresses for SR-MPLS Adjacency SID as Local, >> Remote pair >> >> b) Does the pair consist of one IPv6 global address and one interface ID? >> Please let us know if any clarifcation is needed. This applies to Types G >> (Section 5.7.1.1.7) and J (Section 5.7.1.1.10). >> >> Table 1: >> Current: >> (Type G) SR-MPLS Adjacency SID as pair of IPv6 Global Address & Interface >> ID for >> Local & Remote nodes >> >> Perhaps A: >> (Type G) SR-MPLS Adjacency SID as pair of an IPv6 Global Address & >> Interface ID for Local & Remote Nodes >> >> Perhaps B (in attempt to follow the style of RFC 9256): >> (Type G) IPv6 Global Address & Interface ID for SR-MPLS Adjacency SID as >> Local, Remote Node pair >> >> Section 5.7.1.1.7 >> Current: >> The Segment is an SR-MPLS Adjacency SID type and is specified as a >> pair of IPv6 global address and interface ID for local and remote >> nodes. >> >> Perhaps: >> The Segment is an SR-MPLS Adjacency SID type and is specified as a >> pair of one IPv6 global address and one interface ID for local and remote >> nodes. >> >> --Files-- >> Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the >> most recent version. Please review the document carefully to ensure >> satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC. >> >> We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the >> publication process. >> >> Updated XML file: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9857.xml >> >> Updated output files: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9857.txt >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9857.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9857.html >> >> Diff files showing all changes made during AUTH48: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9857-auth48diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9857-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> >> Diff files showing all changes: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9857-diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9857-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> >> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9857 >> >> Best regards, >> >> Karen Moore >> RFC Production Center >> >> >>> On Sep 11, 2025, at 5:14 AM, Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Karen & Allana, >>> >>> Thanks for your help with this document. I realize it was challenging given >>> the inconsistent use of terms within the document and across its related >>> documents. Appreciate your tidying it up for publication. >>> >>> Please check inline below for responses. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 3:39 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 source file. >>> >>> 1) <!--[rfced] May we update "PCEP protocol" to simply read "PCEP" to >>> avoid redundancy? If expanded, "PCEP protocol" would read as "Path >>> Computation Element Communication Protocol protocol". >>> >>> Original: >>> As illustrated in the figure below, the >>> PCC is not an LSR in the routing domain, thus the head-end nodes of >>> the SR Policies may not implement the PCEP protocol. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> As illustrated in the figure below, the >>> PCC is not an LSR in the routing domain, thus the head-end nodes of >>> the SR Policies may not implement the PCEP. >>> --> >>> >>> KT> Ack >>> >>> >>> >>> 2) <!--[rfced] In Section 3, should the list be formatted as a definition >>> list for ease of reading and consistency with other sections? >>> >>> Original: >>> Where: >>> >>> * Protocol-ID field specifies the component that owns the SR Policy >>> state in the advertising node. An additional Protocol-ID "Segment >>> Routing" (value 9) is introduced by this document that MUST be >>> used for advertisement of SR Policies. >>> >>> * "Identifier" is an 8 octet value as defined in section 5.2 of >>> [RFC9552]. >>> >>> * "Local Node Descriptor" (TLV 256) [RFC9552] is used as specified >>> further in this section. >>> >>> * The SR Policy Candidate Path Descriptor TLV is specified in >>> Section 4. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> Where: >>> >>> * Protocol-ID field: Specifies the component that owns the SR Policy >>> state in the advertising node. An additional Protocol-ID "Segment >>> Routing" (value 9) is introduced by this document that MUST be >>> used for the advertisement of SR Policies. >>> >>> * Identifier: 8-octet value as defined in Section 5.2 of [RFC9552]. >>> >>> * Local Node Descriptors (TLV 256): Defined in [RFC9552] and used as >>> specified further in this section. >>> >>> * SR Policy Candidate Path Descriptor TLV: Specified in Section 4. >>> --> >>> >>> KT> Ack >>> >>> >>> >>> 3) <!--[rfced] As shown below, we removed "Number" from "Autonomous >>> System Number (TLV 512)" per RFC 9552, and we removed "ASN" >>> following "AS Confederation Identifier" as it is not present in >>> RFC 5065. Note that this change was also applied to similar text >>> in Section 3.2. Please let us know of any objections. >>> >>> Note that "ASN" was expanded only on the first mention. >>> >>> Original: >>> * Autonomous System Number (TLV 512) [RFC9552], which contains the >>> ASN (or AS Confederation Identifier (ASN) [RFC5065], if >>> confederations are used) of the headend node of the SR Policy. >>> >>> Current: >>> * Autonomous System (TLV 512) [RFC9552], which contains the >>> Autonomous System Number (ASN) (or AS Confederation Identifier >>> [RFC5065], if confederations are used) of the headend node of >>> the SR Policy. >>> --> >>> >>> KT> Ack >>> >>> >>> >>> 4) <!--[rfced] In RFC 9552, we note that "IGP Router-ID" is listed as >>> both a sub-TLV and a TLV code point. As "sub-TLV" and "TLV" are >>> not included in the description, how may we update "IGP Router-ID >>> sub-TLV (TLV 515)" for conciseness? Would "IGP Router-ID >>> (sub-TLV/TLV 515)" be correct? Note that there are two instances >>> in the document. >>> >>> Original: >>> The determination of whether the >>> IGP Router-ID sub-TLV (TLV 515) contains a 4-octet OSPF Router-ID >>> or a 6-octet ISO System-ID is to be done based on the length of >>> that sub-TLV since the Protocol-ID in the NLRI is always going to >>> be "Segment Routing". >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> The determination of whether the >>> IGP Router-ID (sub-TLV/TLV 515) contains a 4-octet OSPF Router-ID >>> or a 6-octet ISO System-ID is to be done based on the length of >>> that sub-TLV because the Protocol-ID in the NLRI is always going >>> to be "Segment Routing". >>> --> >>> >>> KT> The reference here is to the TLV and the IANA registry is for TLV >>> codepoints but they can also be used as sub-TLVs. So, I agree that your >>> suggestion is better, but how about "IGP Router-ID (TLV 515)" ? >>> >>> >>> >>> 5) <!-- [rfced] We note that Section 6.2.3 of RFC 9256 uses >>> "Specified-BSID-only". Given this, should "Specified BSID" be >>> updated for consistency? >>> >>> Original: >>> The TLV MAY also optionally contain the Specified BSID value for >>> reporting as described in section 6.2.3 of [RFC9256]. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> The TLV MAY also optionally contain the Specified-BSID-only value >>> for reporting as described in Section 6.2.3 of [RFC9256]. >>> --> >>> >>> KT> This change is not appropriate. Here, the idea is to signal the >>> Specified-BSID value. Whether or not the Specified-BSID-only is to be used >>> is indicated by a different flag. >>> >>> >>> >>> 6) <!--[rfced] Please clarify if "BSID" should be singular (option A) or >>> plural (option B) in the following: >>> >>> Original: >>> D-Flag: Indicates the dataplane for the BSIDs and if they are >>> 16 octet SRv6 SID (when set) or are 4 octet SR/MPLS >>> label value (when clear). >>> >>> Perhaps A: >>> D-Flag: Indicates the data plane for the BSIDs and if a BSID is >>> a 16-octet SRv6 SID (when set) or a 4-octet SR/MPLS >>> label value (when clear). >>> >>> Perhaps B: >>> D-Flag: Indicates the data plane for the BSIDs and if the BSIDs >>> are 16-octet SRv6 SIDs (when set) or 4-octet SR/MPLS >>> label values (when clear). >>> --> >>> >>> KT> A is better. >>> >>> >>> >>> 7) <!--[rfced] We note that Figures 7 and 19 use "Sub-TLVs" (capitalized), >>> while Figures 11 and 18 use "sub-TLVs" (lowercased). Should these be >>> consistent? If yes, which form is preferred? >>> --> >>> >>> KT> Here "sub-TLVs" is appropriate as it is not referring to a specific >>> sub-TLV name. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 8) <!--[rfced] We note multiple instances of "MUST be set to 0 by the >>> originator and MUST be ignored by a receiver". Should the one >>> instance below that contains only one "MUST" be updated >>> accordingly (see Section 5.3)? >>> >>> Original: >>> V-Flag: Indicates the candidate path has at least one valid SID-List >>> when set and indicates no valid SID-List is available or evaluated >>> when clear. When the E-Flag is clear (i.e. the candidate path has not >>> been evaluated), then this flag MUST be set to 0 by the originator and >>> ignored by the receiver. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> V-Flag: Indicates that the candidate path has at least one valid SID-List >>> when set and that no valid SID-List is available or evaluated when clear. >>> When the E-Flag is clear (i.e., the candidate path has not been evaluated), >>> then this flag MUST be set to 0 by the originator and MUST be ignored by a >>> receiver. >>> --> >>> >>> KT> Ack >>> >>> >>> >>> 9) <!--[rfced] Please review 2 instances of the term "NULL" in this >>> document. Should "NULL terminator" be "NUL terminator" or "null >>> terminator" for correctness? We ask per guidance received from a >>> Gen Art reviewer. Note that RFC 9256 uses "null endpoint", >>> "Explicit Null Label Policy", and "IPv6 Explicit NULL Label". >>> >>> Current: >>> SR Policy Name: Symbolic name for the SR Policy without a NULL >>> terminator as specified in Section 2.1 of [RFC9256]. >>> >>> Candidate Path Name: Symbolic name for the SR Policy candidate path >>> without a NULL terminator as specified in Section 2.6 of >>> [RFC9256]. >>> --> >>> >>> KT> It should be the NUL - which is what I believe it is called in ASCII. >>> >>> >>> >>> 10) <!--[rfced] How may we clarify this "either" sentence. Is the intended >>> meaning that the dynamic path is computed by the headend or >>> delegated to a controller (option A)? Or that the dynamic path is >>> computed by the headend or by delegation to a controller (option B)? >>> >>> Original: >>> The constraints are generally applied to a dynamic candidate path which is >>> computed either by the headend or may be delegated to a controller. >>> >>> Perhaps A: >>> The constraints are generally applied to a dynamic candidate path that is >>> either computed by the headend or delegated to a controller. >>> >>> Perhaps B: >>> The constraints are generally applied to a dynamic candidate path that is >>> computed by either the headend or delegation to a controller. >>> --> >>> >>> KT> A is correct. >>> >>> >>> >>> 11) <!--[rfced] We note that Figure 15 uses "Request-Flags" and >>> "Status-Flags" >>> (hyphenated), while the definitions of these fields use "Request Flags" >>> and "Status Flags" (unhyphenated). To make these consistent, which form is >>> preferred? >>> --> >>> >>> KT> the unhyphenated please >>> >>> >>> >>> 12) <!-- [rfced] For consistency, should "Association Object" be updated >>> to "ASSOCIATION object" per use in Section 6.1 of [RFC8697]? Note >>> that there are four instances. >>> --> >>> >>> KT> Ack >>> >>> >>> >>> 13) <!--[rfced] How may we rephrase the text in Section 5.6.6 for clarity? >>> >>> KT> I think a copy/paste error from my side in section 5.6.6 with >>> referencine Table 1 has caused a confusion between metric types and segment >>> types. >>> >>> In the first sentence, we note that Table 1 (Section 5.7.1.1) >>> does not list references for the types. Should the term >>> "reference" be replaced with "Segment Descriptor" or other for >>> conciseness? And may we rephrase the second sentence as shown >>> below for clarity and to make it parallel? >>> >>> We also note that Tables 1 and 6 contain the same information. Should >>> Table 1 be removed and references to Table 1 (in Sections 5.6.6 and >>> 5.7.1.1) be updated to point to Table 6? >>> >>> KT> The two tables have different purposes. The Table 1 provides the >>> mapping between the >>> segment types (A to K) defined in RFC 9256 with the code points of the >>> types defined in >>> this document. While table 6 represents the initial allocations for the >>> codepoints >>> for the segment types for IANA. Comparing this to RFC9830/1, the Table 1 is >>> what is listed >>> in https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9830.html#section-2.4.4.2 and >>> Table 6 is what is listed in >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9831.html#section-3.1 - more >>> specifically, I would prefer >>> that we have alignment for the Table 1 column Segment Description with the >>> other two RFCs >>> with one change that we want to keep the (Type X) as a prefix in this >>> document. >>> >>> KT> There is no change required for Table 1, however, we can and perhaps >>> should >>> change the section titles 5.7.1.1.1 through 5.7.1.1.11 to reflect RFC9830 >>> sections >>> 2.4.4.2.1 - 2.4.4.22 and RFC9831 sections 2.1 through 2.10. >>> >>> As an example: Type 1: SR-MPLS Label (Type A) -> Type 1: Segment Type A >>> >>> This will make the section headings short and align with the other two RFCs >>> that specify >>> the southbound BGP signaling while this document specifies its northbound >>> reporting. >>> >>> The titles for figures are ok. >>> >>> The descriptions can then be changed along the lines of >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9831.html#section-3.1 >>> >>> As an example: (Type A) SR-MPLS Label -> Type A Segment >>> >>> Please let me know your views from the perspective of readability and >>> alignment across RFC9256 and >>> the 3 BGP RFCs under RFC Editor currently including this document. >>> >>> >>> Original (Section 5.6.6): >>> The Table 1 below lists the metric types introduced by this document >>> along with reference for each. Where the references are for IS-IS >>> and OSPF specifications, those metric types are defined for a link >>> while in the SR Policy context those relate to the candidate path >>> or the segment list. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> Table 6 lists the metric types introduced by this document along >>> with a Segment Descriptor for each. Where the Segment Descriptors >>> relate to IS-IS and OSPF specifications, the metric types are defined >>> for a link. Where the Segment Descriptors relate to the SR Policy, >>> the metric types are defined for a candidate path or a segment list. >>> >>> >>> KT> Can you please fix/update this blob as below? >>> >>> Below is a list of metric types introduced by this document >>> along with references for each. Where the references are for IS-IS >>> and OSPF specifications, those metric types are defined for a link >>> while in the SR Policy context those relate to the candidate path >>> or the segment list. >>> >>> The "list" is actually right after the paragraph with this text and the >>> reference to Table 1 >>> was an error. I hope this clarifies. >>> >>> ... >>> Original (Section 5.7.1.1) >>> The following types are currently defined and their mapping to the >>> respective segment types defined in [RFC9256]: >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> See Table 6 for the type definitions and their mappings to the >>> respective segment types defined in [RFC9256]. >>> --> >>> >>> KT> The above change is now not necessary. >>> >>> >>> >>> 14) <!--[rfced] For clarity, should the registry that the metric types are >>> taken from be listed here instead of only the registry that they are >>> not listed in? >>> >>> Original: >>> Note that the metric type in this field is not taken from the "IGP >>> Metric Type" registry from IANA "IGP Parameters" and is a separate >>> registry that includes IGP Metric Types as well as metric types >>> specific to SR Policy path computation. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> Note that the metric types in this field are taken from the >>> "BGP-LS SR Policy Metric Types" IANA registry, which includes >>> IGP Metric Types as well as metric types specific to SR Policy >>> path computation (i.e., the metric types are not from the >>> "IGP Metric-Type" registry). >>> --> >>> >>> KT> Ack >>> >>> >>> >>> 15) <!--[rfced] In Section 5.6.6, we updated "Average" to "Avg" to >>> match use in Table 7 and the "BGP-LS SR Policy Metric Types" >>> registry. If you prefer to update the registry to reflect >>> "Average" instead of "Avg", please let us know. >>> >>> Link to registry: >>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/ >>> bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml#bgp-ls-sr-segment-descriptor-types>. >>> >>> Original: >>> Type 6: Average Unidirectional Delay: >>> >>> Current: >>> Type 6: Avg Unidirectional Delay: >>> --> >>> >>> KT> Ack >>> >>> >>> >>> 16) <!--[rfced] We note that Figure 18 contains two "RESERVED" fields. >>> As these are two distinctly different fields, should they be updated >>> as "RESERVED1" and "RESERVED2", which would reflect Figure 11? >>> --> >>> >>> KT> Yes, please do the same for Figure 11 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 17) <!--[rfced] Table 6 (Section 8.5) specifies the SRv6 SID as an "IPv6 >>> address", but Section 5.7.1.1.2 specifies it as an "SRv6 SID address". >>> Is an update needed in Section 5.7.1.1.2 for consistency with Table 6? >>> >>> Original: >>> The Segment is SRv6 type and is specified simply as the SRv6 SID address. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> The Segment is an SRv6 type and is specified simply as the IPv6 address. >>> --> >>> >>> KT> It should just say "SRv6 SID" in 7.7.1.1.2 and in Table 6. But please >>> refer to the previous suggestion on Table 6. >>> >>> >>> >>> 18) <!--[rfced] In Section 5.7.1.1.6, should "interface" be added to more >>> closely match Table 6 (the "BGP-LS SR Segment Descriptor Types" >>> registry)? >>> >>> Link to registry: >>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/ >>> bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml#bgp-ls-sr-segment-descriptor-types >>> >>> Original: >>> IPv4 Local Address: >>> IPv4 Remote Address: >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> IPv4 Local Interface Address: >>> IPv4 Remote Interface Address: >>> >>> ... >>> Original (Figure 25): >>> IPv4 Local Address (4 octets) >>> IPv4 Remote Address (4 octets) >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> IPv4 Local Interface Address (4 octets) >>> IPv4 Remote Interface Address (4 octets) >>> --> >>> >>> KT> Ack for both >>> >>> >>> >>> 19) <!--[rfced] In Sections 5.7.1.1.8 and 5.7.1.1.11, should the following >>> be updated for consistency with the descriptions in Table 6 (the >>> "BGP-LS SR Segment Descriptor Types" registry)? >>> >>> Link to registry: >>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/ >>> bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml#bgp-ls-sr-segment-descriptor-types? >>> >>> Original: >>> IPv6 Local Address: >>> IPv6 Remote Address: >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> IPv6 Local Global Address: >>> IPv6 Remote Global Address: >>> >>> ... >>> Original (Figures 27 and 30): >>> Global IPv6 Local Interface Address (16 octets) >>> Global IPv6 Remote Interface Address (16 octets) >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> IPv6 Local Interface Global Address (16 octets) >>> IPv6 Remote Interface Global Address (16 octets) >>> --> >>> >>> KT> Ack for both. >>> >>> >>> >>> 20) <!-- [rfced] Section 4 of this document as well as RFC 9256 uses >>> "Protocol-Origin" rather than "Protocol Origin". Are any updates >>> needed to the "SR Policy Protocol Origin" registry name, two >>> instances of "SR Protocol Origin", or "Protocol Origin field"? >>> >>> Original: >>> Per this document, IANA has created and maintains a new registry >>> called "SR Policy Protocol Origin" under the "Segment Routing" >>> registry group with the allocation policy of Expert Review [RFC8126] >>> using the guidelines for designated experts as specified in >>> [RFC9256]. This registry contains the code points allocated to the >>> "Protocol Origin" field defined in Section 4. >>> --> >>> >>> KT> Lets use "Protocol-Origin" to be consistent with RFC9256 >>> >>> >>> >>> 21) <!--[rfced] Under the "Segment Descriptor" column in the "BGP-LS SR >>> Segment Descriptor Types" registry, should the following changes >>> be made to the code point descriptions? That is, add articles, >>> make names following "pair" plural, and capitalize instances of >>> "address" and "node", accordingly. >>> >>> The form to the right of the arrow is suggested. If changes are made, >>> we will update the running text accordingly (namely the subsections >>> under Section 5.7.1.1) as well as the IANA registry. >>> >>> Link to registry: >>> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/ >>> bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml#bgp-ls-sr-segment-descriptor-types> >>> >>> (Type B) SRv6 SID as IPv6 address -> (Type B) SRv6 SID as an IPv6 Address >>> >>> >>> (Type C) SR-MPLS Prefix SID as IPv4 Node Address -> >>> (Type C) SR-MPLS Prefix SID as an IPv4 Node Address >>> >>> (Type D) SR-MPLS Prefix SID as IPv6 Node Global Address -> >>> (Type D) SR-MPLS Prefix SID as an IPv6 Node Global Address >>> >>> (Type E) SR-MPLS Adjacency SID as IPv4 Node Address & Local Interface ID -> >>> (Type E) SR-MPLS Adjacency SID as an IPv4 Node Address & a Local >>> Interface ID >>> >>> (Note: Section 5.7.1.1.6 describes Type F as a "pair"; is that correct to >>> add?) >>> (Type F) SR-MPLS Adjacency SID as IPv4 Local & Remote Interface Addresses -> >>> (Type F) SR-MPLS Adjacency SID as a pair of IPv4 Local & Remote >>> Interface Addresses >>> >>> (Type G) SR-MPLS Adjacency SID as pair of IPv6 Global Address & Interface >>> ID for >>> Local & Remote nodes -> >>> (Type G) SR-MPLS Adjacency SID as a pair of IPv6 Global Addresses & >>> Interface IDs for Local & Remote Nodes >>> >>> (Type H) SR-MPLS Adjacency SID as pair of IPv6 Global Addresses for the >>> Local & Remote Interface -> >>> (Type H) SR-MPLS Adjacency SID as a pair of IPv6 Global Addresses for >>> Local & Remote Interface Addresses >>> >>> (Type I) SRv6 END SID as IPv6 Node Global Address -> >>> (Type I) SRv6 END SID as an IPv6 Node Global Address >>> >>> (Type J) SRv6 END.X SID as pair of IPv6 Global Address & Interface ID >>> for Local & Remote nodes -> >>> (Type J) SRv6 END.X SID as a pair of IPv6 Global Addresses & Interface >>> IDs >>> for Local & Remote Nodes >>> >>> (Type K) SRv6 END.X SID as pair of IPv6 Global Addresses for the Local & >>> Remote Interface -> >>> (Type K) SRv6 END.X SID as a pair of IPv6 Global Addresses for Local & >>> Remote Interface Addresses >>> --> >>> >>> KT> Please refer to my response to your point 13 that impacts this. With >>> that in mind, I would think >>> that these queries are no longer relevant? >>> >>> >>> >>> 22) <!--[rfced] FYI: In the Contributors section, we updated the lead-in >>> text as follows to indicate that the individuals listed are >>> coauthors. >>> >>> Original: >>> The following people have substantially contributed to the editing of >>> this document: >>> >>> Current: >>> The following people have contributed substantially to the >>> content of this document and should be considered coauthors: >>> --> >>> >>> KT> Ack >>> >>> >>> >>> 23) <!-- [rfced] Terminology >>> >>> a) Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used >>> inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how they >>> may be made consistent. >>> >>> -Flag vs. -flag >>> (e.g., "D-Flag" vs. "A-flag" in the running text) >>> >>> KT> -flag >>> >>> Metric Type field vs. "metric type" field >>> (Note: the companion document uses "metric type field" with no quote marks) >>> >>> KT> metric type field - without the quotes >>> >>> Segment Descriptor vs. Segment descriptor >>> >>> KT> segment descriptor (except when used in titles where capitalization is >>> used) >>> >>> Segment List vs. segment list >>> >>> KT> 2nd >>> >>> SID-List vs. SID-list vs. SID-LIST vs. SID List >>> >>> KT> SID list to be consistent with a single usage in RFC9256 >>> >>> SR Policy Candidate Path NLRI Type vs. SR Policy Candidate Path NLRI type >>> >>> KT> 2nd >>> >>> >>> SR Policy Candidate Path vs. SR Policy Candidate path vs. SR Policy >>> candidate path >>> >>> KT> Capitalization when used in name (1st) and otherwise (3rd) >>> >>> >>> >>> b) We updated the following terms for consistency. Please let us know of >>> any objections. >>> >>> codepoint -> code point (per IANA registries) >>> dataplane -> data plane >>> drop upon invalid -> Drop-Upon-Invalid (per RFC 9256) >>> Global address -> global address (2 instances in the running text) >>> head-end -> headend >>> nexthop -> next hop >>> traffic engineering -> Traffic Engineering (per RFC 9552 and the companion >>> document) >>> >>> KT> Ack >>> >>> >>> c) FYI: We made "Constraints" in the following sub-TLV names singular for >>> consistency >>> with Table 4. >>> >>> SR Affinity Constraints Sub-TLV -> SR Affinity Constraint Sub-TLV (Figure >>> 12) >>> SR Bandwidth Constraints Sub-TLV -> SR Bandwidth Constraint Sub-TLV (Figure >>> 14) >>> >>> SR Bidirectional Group Constraints Sub-TLV -> >>> SR Bidirectional Group Constraint Sub-TLV (Figure 16) >>> >>> SR Disjoint Group Constraints Sub-TLV -> SR Disjoint Group Constraint >>> Sub-TLV (Figure 15) >>> SR Metric Constraints Sub-TLV -> SR Metric Constraint Sub-TLV (Figure 17 >>> and Section 5.7.2) >>> SR SRLG Constraints Sub-TLV -> SR SRLG Constraint Sub-TLV (Figure 13) >>> >>> KT> Ack >>> >>> >>> d) FYI: We updated 7 instances of "Descriptor" to "Descriptors" >>> for TLV 256 per RFC 9552. >>> >>> Local Node Descriptor (TLV 256) -> Local Node Descriptors (TLV 256) >>> --> >>> >>> KT> Ack >>> >>> >>> >>> 24) <!-- [rfced] Abbreviations >>> >>> a) FYI - We have added expansions for the following abbreviations >>> per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each >>> expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. >>> >>> Autonomous System Number (ASN) >>> Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) >>> External BGP (EBGP) >>> Label Edge Routers (LERs) >>> Label Switched Path (LSP) >>> Label Switching Router (LSR) >>> Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) >>> Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) >>> >>> KT> Ack >>> >>> >>> >>> b) To reflect more common usage in previously published RFCs, may we update >>> the expansion of "BGP-LS" from "BGP Link-State" to "BGP - Link State"? If >>> yes, >>> note that the title of this document would also be updated accordingly. >>> >>> Original: >>> Advertisement of Segment Routing Policies using BGP Link-State >>> ... >>> This document describes a mechanism to collect the Segment Routing >>> Policy information that is locally available in a node and advertise >>> it into BGP Link-State (BGP-LS) updates. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> Advertisement of Segment Routing Policies using BGP - Link State >>> ... >>> This document describes a mechanism to collect the Segment Routing >>> Policy information that is locally available in a node and advertise >>> it into BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) updates. >>> --> >>> >>> KT> ack >>> >>> >>> >>> 25) <!-- [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. >>> >>> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should >>> still be reviewed as a best practice. >>> --> >>> >>> KT> Looks good to me. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Ketan >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> Karen Moore and Alanna Paloma >>> RFC Production Center >>> >>> >>> On Sep 10, 2025, at 3:08 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: >>> >>> *****IMPORTANT***** >>> >>> Updated 2025/09/10 >>> >>> 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://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/rfc9857.xml >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9857.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9857.pdf >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9857.txt >>> >>> Diff file of the text: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9857-diff.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9857-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >>> >>> Diff of the XML: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9857-xmldiff1.html >>> >>> >>> Tracking progress >>> ----------------- >>> >>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9857 >>> >>> Please let us know if you have any questions. >>> >>> Thank you for your cooperation, >>> >>> RFC Editor >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> RFC9857 (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-17) >>> >>> Title : Advertisement of Segment Routing Policies using BGP >>> Link-State >>> Author(s) : S. Previdi, K. Talaulikar, Ed., J. Dong, H. Gredler, J. >>> Tantsura >>> 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
