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. --> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please consider the following with regard to the text below. A) How may we update the instances below to clarify the RFC Editor's role in the submission process? We believe the text should refer to the Independent Submissions Editor instead. B) Is the goal to describe the results in an Internet-Draft for discussion or for consideration for publication as an RFC, or both? Note that Independent Submissions also get posted as Internet-Drafts. C) May we update "to help forward" to "to help progress" or perhaps "to evolve"? Original: Researchers are invited to submit their evaluations of this work to the RFC Editor for consideration as independent submissions or to the IETF SPRING working group as Internet-Drafts. ... The results of this experiment will be collected and shared with the RFC Editor for consideration as independent submission or with the IETF SPRING working group as Internet-Draft, to help forward the discussions that will determine the correct development of Alternate Marking Method solutions in SRv6 networks. Perhaps: Researchers are invited to submit their evaluations of this work to the Independent Submissions Editor or to the IETF SPRING Working Group as Internet-Drafts. ... The results of this experiment will be collected and shared with the Independent Submissions Editor or with the IETF SPRING Working Group as Internet-Drafts to help progress the discussions that will determine the correct development of Alternate- Marking Method solutions in SRv6 networks. --> 3) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble parsing "the mechanism to carry." Does the mechanism carry the headers? Perhaps this refers to the ability to carry Alternate-Marking data? Please clarify. Original (sentence prior provided for context): [RFC9343] defines the standard for how the marking field can be encoded in a new TLV in either Hop-by-hop or Destination Options Headers of IPv6 packets in order to achieve Alternate Marking. The mechanism to carry is equally applicable to Segment Routing for IPv6 (SRv6) networks [RFC8402]. --> 4) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, please consider the following update to indicate the purpose of the experiment. Original: As also highlighted in [I-D.bonica-gendispatch-exp], when two protocol extensions are proposed to solve a single problem, an experiment can be initiated and this is the purpose of this document. See Section 5 for more details about the experimentation. Perhaps: As also highlighted in [IETF-EXPERIMENTS], when two protocol extensions are proposed to solve a single problem, an experiment can be initiated to gather operational experience and "determine which, if either, of the protocols should be progressed to the standards track." This is the purpose of this document. See Section 5 for more details about the experiment. --> 5) <!-- [rfced] May we adjust "it is also allowed" as follows? Original: In addition to the base data fields of [RFC9343], it is also allowed the insertion of optional extended data fields which are not present in [RFC9343]. Perhaps: In addition to the base data fields of [RFC9343], the insertion of optional extended data fields that are not present in [RFC9343] are also allowed. --> 6) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, please consider the following update. Original: Therefore, the experimentation of the Alternate Marking Method to SRv6 MUST be deployed only within a controlled domain. Perhaps: Therefore, the experiment of applying the Alternate-Marking Method to SRv6 MUST only be deployed within a controlled domain. --> 7) <!-- [rfced] Should "of" be updated to "or" in the text below? Original: Carefully bounding the domain reduces the risk of the experiment leaking out and clashing with other experiments of causing unforeseen consequences in wider deployments. Perhaps: Carefully bounding the domain reduces the risk of the experiment leaking out and clashing with other experiments or causing unforeseen consequences in wider deployments. --> 8) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have adjusted the title of Figure 1 to avoid multiple colons. Please review. Original: Figure 1: AltMark: SRH TLV for alternate marking Current: Figure 1: The AltMark SRH TLV for Alternate Marking --> 9) <!-- [rfced] "Experimentation of this document" is a bit awkward. Perhaps one of the suggested updates below is more clear? Original: Experimentation of this document must coordinate the value used by all implementations participating in the experiment. Perhaps A: Participants experimenting with applying the Alternate-Marking Method to SRH must coordinate the value used. Perhaps B: Deployment of this document must coordinate the value used by all implementations participating in the experiment. Please consider whether this text may be updated in a similar manner. Original: Experimentation of this document must use a code point chosen from the Experimental range, as noted in Section 3, and should make it possible for the operator to configure the value used in a deployment such that it is possible to conduct multiple non-conflicting experiments within the same network. Perhaps: Experiment participants must use a code point ... --> 10) <!-- [rfced] For readability, please consider the following update. Original: The security requirement of controlled domain applies to both this document and [RFC9343], and it also confines this duplication to a single service provider networks. However, duplication of the same information in different places should be avoided and it is recommended to only analyze the use of SRH AltMark TLV for the experimentation. Perhaps: Both this document and [RFC9343] require a controlled domain for security purposes, which confines this duplication to a single service provider network. Duplication of the same information in different places should be avoided, and analyzing the use of only the SRH AltMark TLV is recommended as part of this experiment. --> 11) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have updated "comparing the use of" to "compared to the use of" in the text below. Please review. Original: Is the forwarding plane performance impacted across different device architecture types comparing the use of SRH TLV and Destination Option? Current: * Is the forwarding plane performance impacted across different device architecture types compared to the use of SRH TLV and Destination Option? --> 12) <!-- [rfced] Terminology and Abbreviations: a) For consistency with RFC 9343, we have updated instances of "Alternate Marking Method" to appear as "Alternate-Marking Method" throughout. We have also hyphenated other instances where "Alternate Marking" is acting as an adjective that precedes the nounn. Please let us know any objections. b) We have added "Method" to a few instances of "the Alternate Marking" as seen below. Please let us know if any corrections are needed. Original: Section 2 covers the application of the Alternate Marking to SRv6... Application of the Alternate Marking to SRv6 Current: Section 2 covers the application of the Alternate Marking Method to SRv6... Application of the Alternate Marking Method to SRv6 c) We have expanded the following abbreviation upon first use per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review and let us know any corrections. Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) --> 13) <!-- [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. --> Thank you. Kaelin Foody and Sandy Ginoza RFC Production Center On Mar 3, 2026, at 9:07 AM, [email protected] wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2026/03/03 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/rfc9947.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9947.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9947.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9947.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9947-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9947-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9947-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9947 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC9947 (draft-fz-spring-srv6-alt-mark-17) Title : Application of the Alternate Marking Method to the Segment Routing Header Author(s) : G. Fioccola, T. Zhou, G. Mishra, X. Wang, G. Zhang, M. Cociglio WG Chair(s) : Area Director(s) : -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
