Hi Samuel, Thank you for your reply. We have updated as requested and have one follow-up question.
> 9) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in this document > should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container for > content that is semantically less important or tangential to the > content that surrounds it" > (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside). > --> > > <S> I don't see any such note. ) We see the following notes: Section 3: Note: In SRv6, the BSID can be allocated from an algorithm-specific SRv6 Locator, which will result in the path to that BSID PCC node following that algorithm-specific path. Section 4.3: Note: The Subobject Extension Block is applicable to the SRv6-ERO subobject but is not required by this specific specification as existing reserved space is used. When additional space is needed in the SRv6-ERO subobject, the future extensions SHOULD specify the usage of the Subobject Extension Block for the SRv6-ERO subobject. Section 4.5.2.1: Note: The link Bandwidth Metric utilized in the formula may be the original metric advertised on the link, which may have a value inversely proportional to the link capacity. Please let us know if the <aside> element should be used for any of these instances. --- The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9933.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9933.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9933.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9933.pdf The relevant diff files have been posted here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9933-diff.html (comprehensive diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9933-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9933-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 changes side by side) Please review the document carefully and contact us with any further updates you may have. Note that we do not make changes once a document is published as an RFC. We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status page below prior to moving this document forward in the publication process. For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9933 Thank you, Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On Feb 20, 2026, at 1:30 AM, Samuel Sidor (ssidor) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi RFC Editor, > > Please find responses inline <S>. > > Thanks a lot, > Samuel > > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Date: Friday, 20 February 2026 at 01:23 > To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[email protected]>, Zoey Rose (atokar) > <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, > [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, > [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9933 <draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-29> for your > review > > Authors, > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) > the following questions, which are also in the source file. > > 1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in > the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> > > <S>"Prefix-SID Algorithm", "Flexible Algorithm", "IGP Algorithm Types" > > 2) <!--[rfced] FYI - We removed the first paragraph in Section 2 as it > repeats the same information in the second paragraph. Please let us > know of any objections. > > Original: > This document uses the following terms defined in [RFC5440]: ERO, > LSPA, PCC, PCE, PCEP, PCEP Peer, PCEP speaker, RRO, TED. > > This document uses the following terms defined in [RFC5440]: Explicit > Route Object (ERO), Label Switched Path Attributes (LSPA), Path > Computation Client (PCC), Path Computation Element (PCE), Path > Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP), PCEP Peer, PCEP > speaker, Record Route Object (RRO), and Traffic Engineering Database > (TED). > --> > > <S> Thanks for remoing it > > 3) <!--[rfced] To parallel the structure of the first two bullet items, may > we update the latter two bullet items as follows? > > Original: > * Define a new SEBF in the Flags field to indicate the presence of > new extension, and specify the corresponding capability signaling > for that extension. > > * Specify which parts of the reserved/extension block are used and > how the block length is calculated when their extension is > present. > > * The reserved bits in the initial 4 bytes are used when possible, > and the block is extended only when additional space is necessary. > > * Future extensions may define additional SEBFs and corresponding > fields, allowing the block to be increased in size beyond the > initial 4 bytes as needed. > > Perhaps: > * Define a new SEBF in the Flags field to indicate the presence of > a new extension and specify the corresponding capability signaling > for that extension. > > * Specify which parts of the reserved/extension block are used and > how the block length is calculated when their extension is > present. > > * Ensure the reserved bits in the initial 4 bytes are used when possible > and the block is extended only when additional space is necessary. > > * Have future extensions define additional SEBFs and corresponding > fields, allowing the block to be increased in size beyond the > initial 4 bytes as needed. > --> > > <S> Looks fine to me. > > 4) <!--[rfced] For clarity, may we update "PCInitiate, PCUpd messages" to > "PCInitiate or PCUpd messages"? > > Original: > If a PCC receives an LSPA object with SR-Algorithm TLV as part of > PCInitiate, PCUpd messages, then it MUST include LSPA object with SR- > Algorithm TLV in PCRpt message as part of intended-attribute-list. > > Perhaps: > If a PCC receives an LSPA object with SR-Algorithm TLV as part of > PCInitiate or PCUpd messages, then it MUST include LSPA object with SR- > Algorithm TLV in PCRpt message as part of intended-attribute-list. > --> > > <S> Yes, please update. > > 5) <!--[rfced] May we update the punctuation in the latter part of this > sentence to clarify that it is a list of what is used? > > Original: > If the PCE is unable to find a path with the given SR-Algorithm > constraint, it does not support a combination of specified > constraints or if the FAD contains constraints, optimization metric > or other attributes, which the PCE does not support or recognize, it > MUST use an empty ERO in PCInitiate for LSP instantiation or PCUpd > message if an update is required or NO-PATH object in PCRep to > indicate that it was not able to find the valid path. > > Perhaps: > If the PCE is unable to find a path with the given SR-Algorithm > constraint, it does not support a combination of specified > constraints or if the FAD contains constraints, optimization metrics, > or other attributes, which the PCE does not support or recognize, it > MUST use an empty ERO in PCInitiate for LSP instantiation, a PCUpd > message if an update is required, or a NO-PATH object in PCRep to > indicate that it was not able to find the valid path. > --> > > <S> Sure, looks fine. > > 6) <!--[rfced] This note was left in the document: > > [Note to RFC Editor: The URL of the "IGP Flex-Algorithm Path > Computation Rules Registry" IANA registry to be inserted once it will > get created after approval of > [I-D.ietf-lsr-igp-flex-algo-reverse-affinity].] > > Would you like an informative reference or an inline URL to be added > for the "IGP Flex-Algorithm Path Computation Rules" registry > > Original: > [I-D.ietf-lsr-igp-flex-algo-reverse-affinity] created an IANA > registry called "IGP Flex-Algorithm Path Computation Rules Registry" > within the "Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters" registry > group with the ordered set of rules that MUST be used to prune links > from the topology during the Flexible Algorithm path computation. > > Perhaps A (with an informative reference): > [RFC9917] created an IANA > registry called "IGP Flex-Algorithm Path Computation Rules" > [IANA-IGP-RULES] > within the "Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters" registry > group with the ordered set of rules that MUST be used to prune links > from the topology during the Flexible Algorithm path computation. > ... > [IANA-IGP-Rules] > IANA, "IGP Flex-Algorithm Path Computation Rules", > <https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters>. > > Perhaps B (with inline URL): > [RFC9917] created an IANA > registry called "IGP Flex-Algorithm Path Computation Rules" > <https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters> within the "Interior > Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters" registry group with the ordered set > of rules that MUST be used to prune links from the topology during the > Flexible Algorithm path computation. > --> > > <S> Inline URL (option B) looks better to me. > > 7) <!--[rfced] We note that RFC 8281 does not list any "manageability > requirements and considerations". All other RFCs in this sentence > have a specific section about that topic. May we remove RFC 8281 > from the list? > > Original: > All manageability requirements and considerations listed in > [RFC5440], [RFC8231], [RFC8281], [RFC8664] and [RFC9603] apply to the > PCEP extensions defined in this document. > --> > > <S> Thanks for finding it, please drop it. > > 8) <!-- [rfced] Regarding [IEEE.754.2008], this IEEE Standard has been > superseded by a newer version published in 2019 > (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8766229). Would you like us to > update this reference to point to the most current version? > > Current: > [IEEE.754.2008] > IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic", IEEE > Std 754-2008, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2008.4610935, August > 2008, <https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2008.4610935>. > Perhaps: > [IEEE.754.2019] > IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic", IEEE > Std 754-2019, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2019.8766229, July 2019, > <https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2019.8766229>. > --> > > <S> Yes, please update to version published in 2019. > > 9) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in this document > should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container for > content that is semantically less important or tangential to the > content that surrounds it" > (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside). > --> > > <S> I don't see any such note. > > 10) <!--[rfced] Terminology > > a) We note that "object" and "Object" are both used throughout the document. > Please review the terms below and let us know if/how this capitalization > should > be made consistent. > > METRIC object vs. METRIC Object > > LSPA Object vs. LSPA object > PCEP Object > LSP Object > NO-PATH object > BANDWIDTH Object (FYI - We capitalized "Bandwidth" to reflect usage in RFC > 5440.) > <S> Please keep "Object" in section titles and name of IANA registry (e.g. > "METRIC Object T Field", otherwise "object" can be used. > > b) Similar to above, we note that "metric" and "Metric" are both used > throughout > the document. Please review the terms below and let us know if/how this > capitalization should be made consistent. > > Path Min Delay metric vs. Path Min Delay Metric > P2MP Path Min Delay metric vs. P2MP Path Min Delay Metric > Path Bandwidth Metric vs. Path Bandwidth metric > P2MP Path Bandwidth Metric vs. P2MP Path Bandwidth metric > User-defined metric vs. User Defined metric vs. User Defined Metric > Link Delay metric > Path Min Link Delay metric > Min Link Delay metric > P2P Path Min Delay metric > Bandwidth Metric vs. Bandwidth metric vs. bandwidth metric > P2P Bandwidth metric > --> > > <S>Please change to "metric" instead of "Metric" except section titles (Value > in IANA registry needs to be updated based on that as well). > > For "User-defined" vs "User Defined" -> Please use "User-defined" > > For "Bandwidth Metric vs. Bandwidth metric vs. bandwidth metric" -> Please > use "Bandwidth metric" > > > 11) <!--[rfced] Abbreviations > > a) Both the expansion and the acronym for the following terms are used > throughout the document. Would you like to update to using the expansion > upon first usage and the acronym for the rest of the document for > consistency? > > Binding SID (BSID) > Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) > Path Setup Type (PST) > Segment Routing (SR) > > b) FYI - We have expanded the following abbreviation per Section 3.6 of > RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each expansion in the document > carefully to ensure correctness. > > BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) > --> > > <S> > a) Yes, please use expansion upon first usage and the acronym for the rest of > the document. > b) Looks fine to me. > > 12) <!-- [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. > --> > > <S> No changes required. > > Thank you. > > Alanna Paloma and Alice Russo > RFC Production Center > > On Feb 19, 2026, [email protected] wrote: > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > Updated 2026/02/19 > > 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 > > * [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://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, > [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://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9933.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9933.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9933.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9933.txt > > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9933-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9933-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff of the XML: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9933-xmldiff1.html > > > Tracking progress > ----------------- > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9933 > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > > -------------------------------------- > RFC9933 (draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-29) > > Title : Carrying SR-Algorithm in Path Computation Element > Communication Protocol (PCEP) > Author(s) : S. Sidor, Z. Rose, S. Peng, S. Peng, A. Stone > WG Chair(s) : Julien Meuric, Dhruv Dhody > Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter Van de Velde -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
