Hi Ketan, Thanks for your review and guidance on this point. We have reverted this change in the files below (please refresh):
The files have been posted here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9830.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9830.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9830.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9830.xml The relevant diff files have been posted here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9830-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9830-rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9830-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9830-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) These diff files show only the changes made during the last edit round: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9830-lastdiff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9830-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) The AUTH48 status page for this document can be found here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9830 The relevant cluster information can be found here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C534 Once RFC-to-be 9831 completes AUTH48, we will send the necessary updates to IANA for both documents and continue along with the publication process. Thank you. RFC Editor/mf > On Aug 22, 2025, at 2:31 AM, Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Megan, > > I missed this one change that was made incorrectly and needs to be reverted. > I've explained the reasons on the other thread on RFC9831. > > The value 0 MAY be > used when the controller wants to indicate the desired SRv6 > Endpoint > Behavior, Behavior and > SID Structure, or flags without specifying > the BSID. > > > Thanks, > Ketan > > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 1:47 PM Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> > wrote: > Hi Megan, > > Thanks for making these changes for consistency between the two documents. > They look good to me. > > Thanks, > Ketan > > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 12:23 AM Megan Ferguson > <[email protected]> wrote: > Authors, > > Just a note to state that some changes to the document have been added per > discussion of RFC-to-be 9831. > > These updates include the following: > > - The reference entry pointing to RFC-to-be 9831 (title, date) > > - Table 5 in Section 6.5 (to reword the names to appear as Type A Segment > sub-TLV and Type B Segment sub-TLV) > > - Updates to consistently use the phrasing "SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID > Structure” throughout. > > If we can get one author to review and approve these changes, we would > appreciate it. > > NOTE: We will communicate the changes to Table 5 to IANA along with the > similar changes requested for RFC-to-be 9831 once that document completes > AUTH48. Note that this document has moved from AUTH48-DONE back to AUTH48 > until we hear confirmation from authors and IANA completes their > corresponding actions. > > The changes have been folded into the existing files/diffs (please refresh!): > > The files have been posted here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9830.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9830.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9830.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9830.xml > > The relevant diff files have been posted here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9830-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9830-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9830-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9830-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > These diff files show only the changes made during the last edit round: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9830-lastdiff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9830-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) > > The AUTH48 status page for this document can be found here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9830 > > The relevant cluster information can be found here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C534 > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor/mf > > > > On Aug 4, 2025, at 6:02 PM, Karen Moore <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Authors, > > > > IANA has completed the updates to their registries. > > > > This now completes the AUTH48 process for this document. We will move this > > document forward in the publication process along with the companion > > documents when they have completed AUTH48 (see the status at > > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C534>) . > > > > Thank you for your time! > > > > RFC Editor/mf/kc > > > >> On Aug 4, 2025, at 2:04 PM, Karen Moore <[email protected]> > >> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The document looks good to me. > >>> > >>> pdm > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> From: Karen Moore <[email protected]> > >>> Sent: Monday, August 4, 2025 12:40 PM > >>> To: D Jain <[email protected]>; Ketan Talaulikar > >>> <[email protected]>; Paul Mattes <[email protected]>; Clarence > >>> Filsfils (cfilsfil) <[email protected]>; > >>> [email protected]<[email protected]> > >>> Cc: Megan Ferguson <[email protected]>; RFC Editor > >>> <[email protected]>; [email protected]<[email protected]>; > >>> idr-chairs <[email protected]>; Sue Hares <[email protected]>; Roman > >>> Danyliw <[email protected]>; Shawn Zandi via auth48archive > >>> <[email protected]> > >>> 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 [email protected]. 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> the document looks good to me. > >>>> > >>>> thanks. > >>>> s. > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Aug 2, 2025, at 5:51 PM, D Jain <[email protected]> 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 > >>>> <[email protected]> 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) > >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hello, > >>>>> > >>>>> The document looks good to me and I approve its publication. > >>>>> > >>>>> Cheers, > >>>>> Clarence > >>>>> > >>>>> From: Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> > >>>>> Sent: Friday, August 1, 2025 7:40 AM > >>>>> To: Karen Moore <[email protected]> > >>>>> Cc: Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) <[email protected]>; > >>>>> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > >>>>> Megan Ferguson <[email protected]>; RFC Editor > >>>>> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; idr-chairs > >>>>> <[email protected]>; Sue Hares <[email protected]>; Roman Danyliw > >>>>> <[email protected]>; Shawn Zandi via auth48archive > >>>>> <[email protected]> > >>>>> 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 > >>>>> <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > >>>>>> 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 > >>>>>> <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Megan, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks for your response. Please check inline below. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 7:32 PM Megan Ferguson > >>>>>> <[email protected]> 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 > >>>>>>> <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> * [email protected] (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). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> * [email protected], 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, > >>>>>>> [email protected] 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 -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
