EVPN Port-Active Redundancy Mode
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa-13

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa and RFC 9786, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]
In Section 3.2, bullet (g), why is this only a SHOULD?  When might an implementer or operator decide to do otherwise?

Same question around the SHOULD in Section 4.1.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this document. It was a bit dense to review, but I do appreciate the brevity! I have a few comments you may want to consider. In particular, please consider the comment on Section 3.2 MAY/MUST, which talks about what might be a bug in the spec (if it's not a bug in my understanding).

### Abstract, you had one job

The most important job of an abstract is to give the reader a quick hint of what the document is about. This abstract doesn't do that:

  This document builds on the existing redundancy mechanisms supported
  by EVPN and introduces a new Port-Active redundancy mode.

The missing, crucial, part is a brief hint of what the "new Port-Active redundancy mode" *is*, e.g. "new active/standby redundancy mode, called 'Port-Active'."

### Section 3.1, spell out RR

Please spell out "BGP Route Reflector" or expand as "BGP RR (Route Reflector)".

### Section 3.2, MAY or MUST?

  c.  When ESI is configured on a Layer-3 interface, the Ethernet-
      Segment (ES) route (Route Type-4) MAY be the only route exchanged
      by PEs in the redundancy group.

Do you mean "MUST be the only"? As you've written it, it's also fine for various other routes to be exchanged. For that matter as you've written it, it would also be fine for no RT-4 to be exchanged, since by definition MAY can be ignored.

### Section 5, advanced synchronization?

  To enhance convergence during failure and recovery when Port-Active
  redundancy mode is employed, advanced synchronization between peering
  PEs may be beneficial.  The Port-Active mode poses a challenge since
  the "standby" port may be in a down state.  Transitioning a "standby"
  port to an up state and stabilizing the network requires time.  For
  Integrated Routing and Bridging (IRB) and Layer 3 services,
  synchronizing ARP / ND caches is recommended.  Additionally,
  associated VRF tables may need to be synchronized.  For Layer 2
  services, synchronization of MAC tables may be considered.

Is all of this "advanced synchronization" non-standard implementation-specific stuff left as an exercise to the reader? Is it supposed to be obvious what to do? (It's not, to me.) If the synchronization techniques are out of scope, I suggest saying so. If they're referring to existing standardized techniques, I suggest supplying references.

### Section 5.2, wut

I am sad to say that without diving deep into all the underlying specifications, I have no idea what the backward compatibility of this solution is, because you don't summarize it plainly. I can't even guess. :-(

The options would seem to be that inserting a noncompliant PE will

- make the network melt down (probably not this one)
- make the extension in this spec fail to function
  (what happens instead? active/active?)
- something else (what?)

It would be great to make this a little more comprehensible to someone who doesn't have the nuts and bolts committed to memory.

[Ballot comment]
Purely out of interest / curiosity: Why are you using Bit 5, and not 2 or 3 or 4? I'm guessing that some other drafts are using this, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for working on this specification. Thanks to Wesley Eddy for the TSVART review.

My understanding is that even if CE is multihomed to two or more PEs only one path is active at a time, this simplifies the loss handling and reordering concerns.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the document. Minor fixes from nits:

  == Missing Reference: 'ES' is mentioned on line 229, but not defined

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of
    draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vp

[Ballot comment]
The term "PE" is not explained anywhere in the document. Maybe write out in
full on first mention?


        The Security Considerations described in [RFC7432] and [RFC8584] are
        applicable to this document.

These two references are not working properly.

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa-11

Thank you for the work put into this document. As for most I-Ds coming from the BESS WG, it is really difficult to read and to understand, so bear with my lack of BESS context in my review, therefore my review is rather superficial.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Stéphane Litkowski for the shepherd's concise write-up including the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status.

Other thanks to Antoine Fressancourt, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request), please consider this int-dir review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa-11-intdir-telechat-fressancourt-2024-11-27/ (it has just been posted but I expect authors to interact with Antoine, notably on the readability of the document)

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS (non-blocking)

## Abstract

Should there be a reference for MC-LAG ?

## Section 1

Should there be an introduction to MC-LAG already in the introduction or move section 2 as a sub-section of section 1 ?

Again, possibly due to my lack of BESS context, but I fail to find an explanation of `active/standby multi-homing at the interface level`, and I am sure that other readers will welcome a definition. Some graphics would help a lot.

If I *guess* correctly, then is packet ordered delivery also a benefit ? If so, then please state it.

## Section 2

Are I1 and I2 interfaces or links in figure 1 ?

BTW, using the aasvg tool will render figures as SVG, i.e., much nicer in HTML (worth investigating but no need to reply).

It is unclear whether there could be more than 2 links/interfaces in this set-up. The text should be clear on this aspect.

If only one link is active, then does it still qualify as a LAG member ?

## Section 3.1

Please provide references for VXLAN, SRv6, LDP.

In the same vein and if not mistaken, there are multiple protocols using the term "designated forwarder", so, let's be specific.

## Section 4.1

Please expand "AC-DF"

Figure 2 has names for the bits, but the names for bits 2 & 5 are not used in the text.

## Section 4.2

Should there be more explanation for the implementers on how the modulo approach work ?

## Section 10

s/the following coauthors have also contributed/the following people have also contributed/ ?

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa-11. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the DF Election Capabilities registry in the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Extended Communities registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-extended-communities/

A single new bit will be registered as follows:

Bit: 5
Name: P bit - Port Mode Designated Forwarder Election
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Date: [ TBD-at-Registration ]

We understand that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The action requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the action that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-11-19):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: bess-chairs@ietf.org, bess@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa@ietf.org, gunter@vandevelde.cc, slitkows.ietf@gmail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (EVPN Port-Active Redundancy Mode) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the BGP Enabled ServiceS WG (bess) to
consider the following document: - 'EVPN Port-Active Redundancy Mode'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-11-19. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation Group (MC-LAG) technology enables
  establishing a logical link-aggregation connection with a redundant
  group of independent nodes.  The objective of MC-LAG is to enhance
  both network availability and bandwidth utilization through various
  modes of traffic load-balancing.  RFC7432 defines EVPN-based MC-LAG
  with Single-active and All-active multi-homing redundancy modes.
  This document builds on the existing redundancy mechanisms supported
  by EVPN and introduces a new Port-Active redundancy mode.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

# Document Shepherd Writeup

*This version is dated 8 April 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this writeup to give helpful context to Last Call and
Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in
completing it, is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further
described in [RFC 4858][2], and informally. You will need the cooperation of
authors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

There is a strong consensus and support from multiple vendors.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)
No

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

Implementation exists.

### Additional Reviews

5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external
  organizations? Have those reviews occurred?
Not required

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Not required

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?
N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
n/a

### Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
The document is ready

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific
    attention from subsequent reviews?

IMO, no.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
    Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational,
    Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all
    Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Standard track. This is appropriate as the draft is introducing protocol extensions that require interoperability.

12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
    disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not,
    explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the
    intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant
    emails.

No IPR filed

13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as
    such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5,
    please provide a justification.

yes

14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9]
    and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts).
    Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire
    guidelines document.

No nits

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?

No

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
not applicable

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][10],
    [BCP 97][11])? If so, list them.

I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df is not RFC yet. It is in RFC editor queue.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the
    plan for their completion?

No

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][12]).

IANA section is clearly written

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

not applicable

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78
[8]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[9]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html

# Document Shepherd Writeup

*This version is dated 8 April 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this writeup to give helpful context to Last Call and
Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in
completing it, is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further
described in [RFC 4858][2], and informally. You will need the cooperation of
authors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

There is a strong consensus and support from multiple vendors.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)
No

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

Implementation exists.

### Additional Reviews

5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external
  organizations? Have those reviews occurred?
Not required

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Not required

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?
N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
n/a

### Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
The document is ready

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific
    attention from subsequent reviews?

IMO, no.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
    Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational,
    Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all
    Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Standard track. This is appropriate as the draft is introducing protocol extensions that require interoperability.

12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
    disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not,
    explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the
    intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant
    emails.

No IPR filed

13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as
    such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5,
    please provide a justification.

yes

14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9]
    and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts).
    Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire
    guidelines document.

No nits

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?

No

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
not applicable

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][10],
    [BCP 97][11])? If so, list them.

I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df is not RFC yet. It is in RFC editor queue.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the
    plan for their completion?

No

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][12]).

IANA section is clearly written

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

not applicable

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78
[8]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[9]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html

# Document Shepherd Writeup

*This version is dated 8 April 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this writeup to give helpful context to Last Call and
Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in
completing it, is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further
described in [RFC 4858][2], and informally. You will need the cooperation of
authors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

There is a strong consensus and support from multiple vendors.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

No

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)
No

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

Implementation exists.

### Additional Reviews

5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external
  organizations? Have those reviews occurred?
Not required

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Not required

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?
N/A

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
n/a

### Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
The document is ready

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific
    attention from subsequent reviews?

IMO, no.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
    Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational,
    Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all
    Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Standard track. This is appropriate as the draft is introducing protocol extensions that require interoperability.

12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
    disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not,
    explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the
    intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant
    emails.

No IPR filed

13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as
    such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5,
    please provide a justification.



14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9]
    and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts).
    Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire
    guidelines document.

No nits

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?

No

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
not applicable

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][10],
    [BCP 97][11])? If so, list them.

I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df is not RFC yet but has been already submitted to IESG.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the
    plan for their completion?

No

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][12]).

IANA section is clearly written

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

not applicable

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78
[8]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[9]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Bin Wen , Eddie Leyton , Jorge Rabadan , Luc Burdet , Patrice Brissette , Samir Thoria , bess-chairs@ietf.org