Skip to main content

SR Replication segment for Multi-point Service Delivery
draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-19

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2024-02-22
(System)
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment and RFC 9524, changed IESG state to RFC …
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment and RFC 9524, changed IESG state to RFC Published)
2024-02-14
19 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2024-01-26
19 Gunter Van de Velde Request closed, assignment withdrawn: Sarah Banks Telechat OPSDIR review
2024-01-26
19 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Telechat review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events': Cleaning up stale OPSDIR queue
2024-01-19
19 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48
2023-11-20
19 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2023-10-31
19 Daniam Henriques Request closed, assignment withdrawn: Lou Berger Last Call RTGDIR review
2023-10-31
19 Daniam Henriques Closed request for Last Call review by RTGDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events'
2023-08-29
Jenny Bui Posted related IPR disclosure Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment
2023-08-28
19 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2023-08-28
19 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2023-08-28
19 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2023-08-28
19 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2023-08-28
19 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2023-08-28
19 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2023-08-28
19 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2023-08-28
19 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2023-08-28
19 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2023-08-28
19 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2023-08-28
19 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2023-08-28
19 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2023-08-28
19 Jim Guichard I have completed final AD review and all comments have been addressed. Approved.
2023-08-28
19 (System) Removed all action holders (IESG state changed)
2023-08-28
19 Jim Guichard IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2023-08-28
19 Rishabh Parekh New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-19.txt
2023-08-28
19 (System) New version approved
2023-08-28
19 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Dan Voyer , Hooman Bidgoli , Rishabh Parekh , Zhaohui Zhang
2023-08-28
19 Rishabh Parekh Uploaded new revision
2023-08-28
18 Lars Eggert
[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-16

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Thomas Fossati for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/WF6_i6kgEP9J8_frlekZtnm_6sQ). …
[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-16

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Thomas Fossati for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/WF6_i6kgEP9J8_frlekZtnm_6sQ).

## Comments

### Section 2, paragraph 18
```
    In principle it is possible for different Replication segments to
    replicate packets to the same Replication segment on a Downstream
    node.  However, such usage is intentionally left out of scope of this
    document.
```
What was the intent of leaving this out? There seems to be complexity
here that can be abused, in which case I would have expected this to
either be explicitly forbidden or discussed in sufficient detail to
understand (and mitigate) the issues.

### Section 2.2.3, paragraph 2
```
    An implementation of Replication segment for SRv6 MUST enforce these
    same restrictions and exceptions.  Though this specification does not
    use any extension header a future extension may do so and MUST
    support the exception (2) above.
```
It is unusual for a spec to limit what a future extension can do in
this way (and often it turns out to be too limiting) - why is this
content needed in this document?

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Section 2, paragraph 18
```
    an indicator role of the node is Leaf.  The operation performed on
    incoming Replication SID is NEXT https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/
    rfc8402#section-2.  At an egress node, the Replication SID MAY be
```
Document uses `eref` elements that convert into plaintext URLs in the
document (above and elsewhere), which make things difficult to read.
Convert to proper references?

### Grammar/style

#### Section 1.1, paragraph 5
```
des the ingress (Root) node of a multi-point service and the egress (Leaf) no
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^
```
This word is normally spelled as one. (Also elsewhere.)

#### Section 2.1, paragraph 8
```
ote that this H.Encaps.Red is independent from the replication segment – it i
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
The usual collocation for "independent" is "of", not "from". Did you mean
"independent of"?

#### Section 2.2, paragraph 7
```
is variant of End behavior. The pseudo-code in this section follows the conv
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^
```
This word is normally spelled as one. (Also elsewhere.)

#### Section 2.2.3, paragraph 1
```
this draft does not specify any inter-operable elements of Replication segme
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
This word is normally spelled as one.

#### Section 8.2, paragraph 4
```
6, using N-SID6, steers packet via shortest path to that node. Replication to
                                  ^^^^^^^^
```
A determiner may be missing.

#### "A.1.", paragraph 11
```
b8:cccc:6:F6::0, steers packet via shortest path to that node. Replication to
                                  ^^^^^^^^
```
A determiner may be missing.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool
2023-08-28
18 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lars Eggert has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2023-08-25
18 Rishabh Parekh New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-18.txt
2023-08-25
18 (System) New version approved
2023-08-25
18 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Dan Voyer , Hooman Bidgoli , Rishabh Parekh , Zhaohui Zhang
2023-08-25
18 Rishabh Parekh Uploaded new revision
2023-08-24
17 Andrew Alston
[Ballot comment]
Moving this to a new objection thanks to the update to the security text.  My thanks to the authors for making the effort …
[Ballot comment]
Moving this to a new objection thanks to the update to the security text.  My thanks to the authors for making the effort to clearly document the security considerations - and while I still feel that there are major problems with srv6 security in general - I don't feel that they can be further dealt with in the context of this document.
2023-08-24
17 Andrew Alston [Ballot Position Update] Position for Andrew Alston has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2023-08-22
17 Rishabh Parekh New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-17.txt
2023-08-22
17 (System) New version approved
2023-08-22
17 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Dan Voyer , Hooman Bidgoli , Rishabh Parekh , Zhaohui Zhang
2023-08-22
17 Rishabh Parekh Uploaded new revision
2023-08-21
16 Roman Danyliw [Ballot comment]
Thank you to Mohit Sethi for the SECDIR review.

Thanks for the refined Security Considerations language.

I support Andrew Alston DISCUSS position.
2023-08-21
16 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] Position for Roman Danyliw has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2023-08-10
16 Erik Kline
[Ballot comment]
### S2.2.1

    S01.  If (Upper-Layer header type == 4(IPv4) OR
              Upper-Layer header type == …
[Ballot comment]
### S2.2.1

    S01.  If (Upper-Layer header type == 4(IPv4) OR
              Upper-Layer header type == 4(IPv6) ) {

seems suspicious.  I think the second "4" should probably be "41"?

### S5

ULAs are not "non-routable"; they're "non-globally-routable".
2023-08-10
16 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] Position for Erik Kline has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2023-08-10
16 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2023-08-04
16 Andrew Alston
[Ballot discuss]
Firstly, thanks for the security section updates - that moves me from an abstain to a discuss.

I would like to this discuss …
[Ballot discuss]
Firstly, thanks for the security section updates - that moves me from an abstain to a discuss.

I would like to this discuss text:

"Given the definition of the Replication segment in this document, an attacker subverting ingress filter above cannot take advantage of a stack of replication segments to perform amplification attacks nor link exhaustion attacks. Replication segment trees always terminate at a Leaf or Bud node resulting in a decapsulation."

Here is issue with this - what happens post decapsulation.  I.E - if I were to take an IPv4 packet - encapsulate it in a replication SID - with a source host I wished to attack, and a destination address of an attached broadcast - would the IPv4 packet be processed post de-cap.

If the packets post de-cap do indeed get forwarded, the attack vector is still entirely real. The SRv6 is used to tunnel packets pass things like IP directed broadcast protections, unicast reverse path filtering etc, and the de-cap ensures they get acted on.

If I've missed something here or am off in my analysis - apologies - but if not - the above text needs to be rectified so that this attack vector is made clear.
2023-08-04
16 Andrew Alston [Ballot Position Update] Position for Andrew Alston has been changed to Discuss from Abstain
2023-08-04
16 Lars Eggert
[Ballot discuss]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-16

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Thomas Fossati for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/WF6_i6kgEP9J8_frlekZtnm_6sQ). …
[Ballot discuss]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-16

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Thomas Fossati for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/WF6_i6kgEP9J8_frlekZtnm_6sQ).

## Discuss

### Paragraph 0

This document introduces packet replication functionality into SR
networks. This significantly increases and complicates the attack
surface of the technology while at the same time introducing severe
new misconfiguration possibilities (e.g., multicast amplification
loops that can lead to congestion collapse of the network.) This
document does not adequately describe and discuss these issues.
Additionally, this documents needs to specify suitable
countermeasures - it is not sufficient to leave this up to
unspecified control plane mechanisms.
2023-08-04
16 Lars Eggert
[Ballot comment]
## Comments

### Section 2, paragraph 18
```
    In principle it is possible for different Replication segments to
    replicate …
[Ballot comment]
## Comments

### Section 2, paragraph 18
```
    In principle it is possible for different Replication segments to
    replicate packets to the same Replication segment on a Downstream
    node.  However, such usage is intentionally left out of scope of this
    document.
```
What was the intent of leaving this out? There seems to be complexity
here that can be abused, in which case I would have expected this to
either be explicitly forbidden or discussed in sufficient detail to
understand (and mitigate) the issues.

### Section 2.2.3, paragraph 2
```
    An implementation of Replication segment for SRv6 MUST enforce these
    same restrictions and exceptions.  Though this specification does not
    use any extension header a future extension may do so and MUST
    support the exception (2) above.
```
It is unusual for a spec to limit what a future extension can do in
this way (and often it turns out to be too limiting) - why is this
content needed in this document?

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Section 2, paragraph 18
```
    an indicator role of the node is Leaf.  The operation performed on
    incoming Replication SID is NEXT https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/
    rfc8402#section-2.  At an egress node, the Replication SID MAY be
```
Document uses `eref` elements that convert into plaintext URLs in the
document (above and elsewhere), which make things difficult to read.
Convert to proper references?

### Grammar/style

#### Section 1.1, paragraph 5
```
des the ingress (Root) node of a multi-point service and the egress (Leaf) no
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^
```
This word is normally spelled as one. (Also elsewhere.)

#### Section 2.1, paragraph 8
```
ote that this H.Encaps.Red is independent from the replication segment – it i
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
The usual collocation for "independent" is "of", not "from". Did you mean
"independent of"?

#### Section 2.2, paragraph 7
```
is variant of End behavior. The pseudo-code in this section follows the conv
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^
```
This word is normally spelled as one. (Also elsewhere.)

#### Section 2.2.3, paragraph 1
```
this draft does not specify any inter-operable elements of Replication segme
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
This word is normally spelled as one.

#### Section 8.2, paragraph 4
```
6, using N-SID6, steers packet via shortest path to that node. Replication to
                                  ^^^^^^^^
```
A determiner may be missing.

#### "A.1.", paragraph 11
```
b8:cccc:6:F6::0, steers packet via shortest path to that node. Replication to
                                  ^^^^^^^^
```
A determiner may be missing.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool
2023-08-04
16 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Lars Eggert
2023-07-31
16 (System) Changed action holders to Jim Guichard (IESG state changed)
2023-07-31
16 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2023-07-31
16 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2023-07-31
16 Rishabh Parekh New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-16.txt
2023-07-31
16 (System) New version approved
2023-07-31
16 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Dan Voyer , Hooman Bidgoli , Rishabh Parekh , Zhaohui Zhang
2023-07-31
16 Rishabh Parekh Uploaded new revision
2023-07-06
15 (System) Changed action holders to Jim Guichard, Dan Voyer, Clarence Filsfils, Rishabh Parekh, Hooman Bidgoli, Zhaohui Zhang (IESG state changed)
2023-07-06
15 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2023-07-06
15 Cindy Morgan Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2023-07-05
15 Roman Danyliw
[Ballot discuss]
I appreciate the mention of RFC8402 and RFC8754’s Security Considerations.  Both reiterate the need to filter traffic at the SR domain boundary …
[Ballot discuss]
I appreciate the mention of RFC8402 and RFC8754’s Security Considerations.  Both reiterate the need to filter traffic at the SR domain boundary and the notion that trusting the nodes in the SR domain.  However, this document is introducing new SR behavior (replication).  This new behavior introduces additional DoS risk which should be documented.
2023-07-05
15 Roman Danyliw
[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Mohit Sethi for the SECDIR review.

I support Erik Kline’s DISCUSS position.

** Section 2.2.1.  Typo. s/secion/section/

** Section 2.2.1.  …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Mohit Sethi for the SECDIR review.

I support Erik Kline’s DISCUSS position.

** Section 2.2.1.  Typo. s/secion/section/

** Section 2.2.1.  Please don’t use RFC2119 keywords in the non-normative S07-08 text.
2023-07-05
15 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2023-07-05
15 Erik Kline
[Ballot discuss]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-15
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Discuss …
[Ballot discuss]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-15
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Discuss

### S2.2.1

* I think there's some clarification required about what a Replication SID
  does if Segments Left is > 0.

  I can't see where Segments Left is decremented prior to packet duplication
  and so it looks like Replicate() would effectively H.Encaps[.Red] packets
  with an (inner) SRH that still points to the Replication SID?

* At S20, if Segments Left is still > 0 (even after whatever S16 is supposed
  to be doing), why would you discard all of the extension headers?

  I think the S14-S21 stuff is trying to say "if this Replication node is
  a leaf or a bud include it in the Replication List".  If that's true I
  suspect there are clearer ways to express that; you could just redefine
  the replication list inside Replicate() and let implementers figure out
  how to apply optimizations.

### A.2.1

* Please clarify which source address R6 uses to formulate the Echo Reply.

  I'm a little unclear on the mental model here.  The generation of ICMP
  errors is prohibited because the Replication SID is analogized to a
  multicast address in this context.

  Pinging a multicast address is of course fine, but the echo requester knows
  to expect the source address of replies to be any unicast address.  I'm
  assuming a requester needs to be modified to know that echo replies cannot
  come from the Replication SID in this case?

  Or is the Replication SID intended to be the source address of Echo Replies
  here, as if it's some kind of conceptual "unicast whenever we want but also
  multicast whenever say" kind of address?
2023-07-05
15 Erik Kline
[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-15
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Comments …
[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-15
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Comments

### S2/S2.2

* Given that Replicate() is implemented in terms of encapsulation in another
  SRH it's probably good to cite some text about the MTU considerations for
  operators.  Probably the usual "size your MTU big enough or expect trouble"
  type of advice is really all that can be said.

### S2/S6

* It seems like nothing in the control plane representation information can
  prevent a chain of replication SIDs forming a loop.  It should probably be
  noted that this can occur, looping and replicating packets until the
  Hop Limit stops it, if there is no function elsewhere that prevents the
  formation of loops when setting up the control plane (not necessarily a
  problem when a PCE is programming things, but in the "provisioned locally
  on a node" case it might be easier to make a mistake).

## Nits

### S1.1

* s/IPV6/IPv6/

### S2.2

* s/pen-ultimate/penultimate/
2023-07-05
15 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2023-07-05
15 Martin Duke [Ballot comment]
Thanks to Wes Eddy for the TSVART review.
2023-07-05
15 Martin Duke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Duke
2023-07-05
15 Andrew Alston
[Ballot comment]
I've been back and forth on this having read the document several times - and I have to join Warren in an abstention …
[Ballot comment]
I've been back and forth on this having read the document several times - and I have to join Warren in an abstention here - for very similar reasons.  While I view the security issues in this document as stemming from a former document (RFC8402) - the way I see it, we're building on quicksand here.

Yes, RFC8402 says that SRv6 must run in a trusted domain - however, the practical methods of enforcing the trusted domain seem woefully lacking, and then, in addition to that when dealing with replication we then compound the issues created by potential packet injection. I simply cannot see how I can no-object to this, however, I also fully understand the criteria for discuss ballots, and since these issues stem from RFC8402 I do not feel that I'm on solid ground balloting discuss.  As such, I must abstain.
2023-07-05
15 Andrew Alston [Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded for Andrew Alston
2023-07-05
15 Warren Kumari
[Ballot comment]
I am balloting Abstain (in the "I oppose this document but understand that others differ and am not going to stand in the …
[Ballot comment]
I am balloting Abstain (in the "I oppose this document but understand that others differ and am not going to stand in the way of the others." sense) on this document as I cannot in good conscience ballot NoObj.

The Security Consideration hinge on "An SR domain operates within an assumed trust domain as specified in Security Considerations of RFC 8402. Traffic must be filtered at SR domain boundaries to prevent malicious replication of packets."
Firstly I'll note that this isn't really what the Security Considerations section of RFC8042 actually says (it is really short, but says: "**By default**, SR operates within a trusted domain. Traffic MUST be filtered at the domain boundaries." (emphasis mine)), but secondly, this talks about replication of traffic (AKA a DoS amplifier). I believe that the document (and SR in general) needs to do a much better job of discussing the security / DoS implications of what happens when an attacker is able to inject traffic into the SR domain (e.g because they have 0wned a node within the network.

I'm balloting Abstain instead of DISCUSS because I've raised this objection multiple times on multiple document, and no longer have the stomach to have this fight yet again.
2023-07-05
15 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2023-07-05
15 Mohit Sethi Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Mohit Sethi. Sent review to list.
2023-07-05
15 Robert Wilton
[Ballot comment]
Hi,

(1) p 2, sec 1.  Introduction

  Replication segment is a new type of segment for Segment Routing(SR)
  [RFC8402], …
[Ballot comment]
Hi,

(1) p 2, sec 1.  Introduction

  Replication segment is a new type of segment for Segment Routing(SR)
  [RFC8402], which allows a node (henceforth called a Replication node)
  to replicate packets to a set of other nodes (called Downstream
  nodes) in a Segment Routing Domain.  Replication segments provide
  building blocks for Point-to-Multipoint Service delivery via SR
  Point-to-Multipoint (SR P2MP) policy.  A Replication segment can
  replicate packets to directly connected nodes or to downstream nodes
  (without need for state on the transit routers).  This document
  focuses on the Replication segment building block.  The use of one or
  more stitched Replication segments constructed for SR P2MP Policy
  tree is specified in [I-D.ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy].  This document
  focuses on specifying replication behavior in an SR domain.  The
  management of IP multicast groups, building IP multicast trees, and
  performing multicast congestion control are out of scope of this
  document.

This isn't directly my technology area, but I found this document, at least up to section 2.2.1 to be quite heavy going.  I don't have any great suggestions on how to significantly improve this, but found the examples helpful and wished that I had looked at them first.  So, perhaps include a forward reference to them at the end of the introduction section.



Minor level comments:

(2) p 5, sec 2.1.  SR-MPLS data plane

  SIDs MAY be added before the downstream SR-MPLS Replication SID in
  order to guide a packet from a non-adjacent SR node to a Replication
  node.  A Replication node MAY replicate a packet to a non-adjacent
  Downstream node using SIDs it inserts in the copy preceding the
  downstream Replication SID.  The Downstream node may be a leaf node
  of the Replication segment, or another Replication node, or both in
  case of bud node.  A Replication node MAY use an Anycast SID or BGP
  PeerSet SID in segment list to send a replicated packet to one
  downstream Replication node in an Anycast set if and only if all
  nodes in the set have an identical Replication SID and reach the same
  set of receivers.  For some use cases, there MAY be SIDs after the
  Replication SID in the segment list of a packet.  These SIDs are used
  only by the Leaf/Bud nodes to forward a packet off the tree
  independent of the Replication SID.  Coordination regarding the
  absence or presence and value of context information for Leaf/Bud
  nodes is outside the scope of this document.

As a minor tweak to readability, I did wondering whether the above paragraph could be split into something more like a list, i.e., something like:

SIDs MAY ...

  - A Repliaction node MAY ...
  - A Replication node MAY ...
  - For some use cases, there MAY ...

Regards,
Rob
2023-07-05
15 Robert Wilton [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton
2023-07-05
15 Paul Wouters [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Paul Wouters
2023-06-30
15 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2023-06-28
15 Éric Vyncke
[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-15

Thank you for the work put into this document. It is quite dense and not …
[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-15

Thank you for the work put into this document. It is quite dense and not too easy to read though, perhaps adding some graphics?

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

Special thanks to Mankamana Prasad Mishra for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS

## Section 1

The reader would probably welcome use case of this protocol: is it for multicast ? or more like a span port for monitoring/troubleshooting ?

Waiting until section 3 is not really reader friendly.

## Section 2

`When the PCE signals a Replication segment to its node` what is 'its node' ?

## Section 2.2

In the 2nd paragraph, is the segment left field also decremented ?

## Section 2.2.3

Thanks for this section (no need to reply).

# NITS

## Section 4.2

s/has all the Must and SHOULD clause/has all the MUST and SHOULD clauses/ ?
2023-06-28
15 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2023-06-21
15 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sarah Banks
2023-06-20
15 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2023-06-20
15 Rishabh Parekh New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-15.txt
2023-06-20
15 (System) New version approved
2023-06-20
15 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Dan Voyer , Hooman Bidgoli , Rishabh Parekh , Zhaohui Zhang
2023-06-20
15 Rishabh Parekh Uploaded new revision
2023-06-20
14 Jim Guichard Placed on agenda for telechat - 2023-07-06
2023-06-20
14 Jim Guichard Ballot has been issued
2023-06-20
14 Jim Guichard [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jim Guichard
2023-06-20
14 Jim Guichard Created "Approve" ballot
2023-06-20
14 Jim Guichard IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2023-06-20
14 Jim Guichard Ballot writeup was changed
2023-06-19
14 Sarah Banks Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Sarah Banks. Sent review to list.
2023-06-19
14 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2023-06-16
14 Wesley Eddy Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Wesley Eddy. Sent review to list.
2023-06-16
14 Magnus Westerlund Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Wesley Eddy
2023-06-15
14 Magnus Westerlund Assignment of request for Last Call review by TSVART to David Black was rejected
2023-06-15
14 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Mohit Sethi
2023-06-15
14 Magnus Westerlund Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to David Black
2023-06-14
14 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2023-06-14
14 David Dong
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-14. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-14. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

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

In the SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors registry on the Segment Routing registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/segment-routing/

The existing early registration for:

Value: 75
Hex: 0x004B
Endpoint Behavior: End. Replicate

will be made permanent. Its reference will be changed to [ RFC-to-be ] and the change controller will be changed to IETF.

The IANA Functions Operator understands 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 Specialist
2023-06-12
14 Haomian Zheng Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Lou Berger
2023-06-09
14 Thomas Fossati Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Thomas Fossati. Sent review to list.
2023-06-08
14 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Thomas Fossati
2023-06-07
14 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sarah Banks
2023-06-05
14 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2023-06-05
14 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-06-19):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment@ietf.org, james.n.guichard@futurewei.com, mankamis@cisco.com, spring-chairs@ietf.org, spring@ietf.org …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-06-19):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment@ietf.org, james.n.guichard@futurewei.com, mankamis@cisco.com, spring-chairs@ietf.org, spring@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (SR Replication segment for Multi-point Service Delivery) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Source Packet Routing in Networking
WG (spring) to consider the following document: - 'SR Replication segment for
Multi-point Service Delivery'
  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 2023-06-19. 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


  This document describes the Segment Routing Replication segment for
  Multi-point service delivery.  A Replication segment allows a packet
  to be replicated from a Replication node to Downstream nodes.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment/


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5016/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/5612/
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/4909/





2023-06-05
14 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2023-06-05
14 Jim Guichard Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2023-06-05
14 Jim Guichard Last call was requested
2023-06-05
14 Jim Guichard Ballot approval text was generated
2023-06-05
14 Jim Guichard Ballot writeup was generated
2023-06-05
14 Jim Guichard IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2023-06-05
14 Jim Guichard Last call announcement was generated
2023-06-02
14 (System) Changed action holders to Jim Guichard (IESG state changed)
2023-06-02
14 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2023-06-02
14 Rishabh Parekh New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-14.txt
2023-06-02
14 (System) New version approved
2023-06-02
14 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Dan Voyer , Hooman Bidgoli , Rishabh Parekh , Zhaohui Zhang
2023-06-02
14 Rishabh Parekh Uploaded new revision
2023-05-22
13 (System) Changed action holders to Dan Voyer, Clarence Filsfils, Rishabh Parekh, Hooman Bidgoli, Zhaohui Zhang, Jim Guichard (IESG state changed)
2023-05-22
13 Jim Guichard IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2023-05-22
13 Jim Guichard AD publication request review === https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/XuqaOEtLsSPYISRwg9BWAtvE45Y/ ===
2023-05-22
13 (System) Changed action holders to Jim Guichard (IESG state changed)
2023-05-22
13 Jim Guichard IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::AD Followup from AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed
2023-05-22
13 (System) Changed action holders to Jim Guichard, Dan Voyer, Clarence Filsfils, Rishabh Parekh, Hooman Bidgoli, Zhaohui Zhang (IESG state changed)
2023-05-22
13 Jim Guichard IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2023-05-22
13 Jim Guichard IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::AD Followup from Publication Requested
2023-05-19
13 Mankamana Mishra
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up 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]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors 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?
WG had good amount of discussion and across vendors and operator people participated in discussion. With broad agreement this document was progressed .

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
There were no controversy , but some technical discussion around SRv6 area during WGLC which were resolved.

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.)

None

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)?

Section 4 of document talks about two implementation.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.
Since it is multicast related document, it was presented in PIM WG as well.

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 applicable

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]?
No Yang models

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.
Yes, it was written in XML

## 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?

Yes, document is written clearly and its complete and covers the complete design which would be useful for any one implementing this service.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?
None

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
Its Proposed Standard , and looks best intended publication since this defines protocol extension for P2MP service in SR network.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
No nits
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
References looks good.

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

WG did have the review

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

None

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
None

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, it does not change status of any other RFC

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][11]).
Yea IANA section clearly documents the registries and names.

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.
NA
[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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

2023-04-19
13 Jim Guichard Notification list changed to mankamis@cisco.com because the document shepherd was set
2023-04-19
13 Jim Guichard Document shepherd changed to Mankamana Prasad Mishra
2023-04-18
13 (System) Changed action holders to Jim Guichard (IESG state changed)
2023-04-18
13 Jim Guichard Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard
2023-04-18
13 Jim Guichard Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested
2023-04-18
13 (System) Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for /doc/draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment/
2023-04-18
13 Jim Guichard Working group state set to Submitted to IESG for Publication
2023-04-18
13 Jim Guichard Shepherding AD changed to Jim Guichard
2023-03-21
13 Jim Guichard Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set.
2023-03-21
13 Jim Guichard IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call
2023-03-02
13 Rishabh Parekh New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-13.txt
2023-03-02
13 (System) New version approved
2023-03-02
13 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Dan Voyer , Hooman Bidgoli , Rishabh Parekh , Zhaohui Zhang
2023-03-02
13 Rishabh Parekh Uploaded new revision
2023-02-27
12 Rishabh Parekh New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-12.txt
2023-02-27
12 (System) New version approved
2023-02-27
12 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Dan Voyer , Hooman Bidgoli , Rishabh Parekh , Zhaohui Zhang
2023-02-27
12 Rishabh Parekh Uploaded new revision
2023-01-13
11 Rishabh Parekh New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-11.txt
2023-01-13
11 (System) New version approved
2023-01-13
11 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Dan Voyer , Hooman Bidgoli , Rishabh Parekh , Zhaohui Zhang
2023-01-13
11 Rishabh Parekh Uploaded new revision
2022-11-14
10 Ines Robles Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Ines Robles. Sent review to list.
2022-11-03
10 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ines Robles
2022-11-03
10 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ines Robles
2022-11-03
10 Luc André Burdet Assignment of request for Last Call review by RTGDIR to Jonathan Hardwick was rejected
2022-11-01
10 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Jonathan Hardwick
2022-11-01
10 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Jonathan Hardwick
2022-10-26
10 Jim Guichard Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2022-10-20
10 Rishabh Parekh New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-10.txt
2022-10-20
10 Rishabh Parekh New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Rishabh Parekh)
2022-10-20
10 Rishabh Parekh Uploaded new revision
2022-10-18
09 Jim Guichard IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2022-10-06
09 Rishabh Parekh New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-09.txt
2022-10-06
09 Rishabh Parekh New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Rishabh Parekh)
2022-10-06
09 Rishabh Parekh Uploaded new revision
2022-07-01
08 Rishabh Parekh New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-08.txt
2022-07-01
08 (System) New version approved
2022-07-01
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Dan Voyer , Hooman Bidgoli , Rishabh Parekh , Zhaohui Zhang
2022-07-01
08 Rishabh Parekh Uploaded new revision
2022-04-11
Tina Dang Posted related IPR disclosure Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment
2022-03-07
07 Rishabh Parekh New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-07.txt
2022-03-07
07 (System) New version approved
2022-03-07
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Dan Voyer , Hooman Bidgoli , Rishabh Parekh , Zhaohui Zhang
2022-03-07
07 Rishabh Parekh Uploaded new revision
2021-10-25
06 Rishabh Parekh New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-06.txt
2021-10-25
06 (System) New version approved
2021-10-25
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Dan Voyer , Hooman Bidgoli , Rishabh Parekh , Zhaohui Zhang
2021-10-25
06 Rishabh Parekh Uploaded new revision
2021-08-20
05 Rishabh Parekh New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-05.txt
2021-08-20
05 (System) New version approved
2021-08-20
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Dan Voyer , Hooman Bidgoli , Rishabh Parekh , Zhaohui Zhang
2021-08-20
05 Rishabh Parekh Uploaded new revision
2021-07-23
Jenny Bui Posted related IPR disclosure Cisco Systems, Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment
2021-06-10
Jenny Bui Posted related IPR disclosure Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-geng-spring-sr-redundancy-protection and draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment
2021-03-07
04 Shuping Peng Added to session: IETF-110: spring  Thu-1300
2021-02-18
04 Arvind Venkateswaran New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-04.txt
2021-02-18
04 (System) New version approved
2021-02-17
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Daniel Voyer , Hooman Bidgoli , Rishabh Parekh , Zhaohui Zhang
2021-02-17
04 Arvind Venkateswaran Uploaded new revision
2020-10-29
03 Rishabh Parekh New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-03.txt
2020-10-29
03 (System) New version approved
2020-10-29
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Rishabh Parekh , Daniel Voyer , Clarence Filsfils , Hooman Bidgoli , Zhaohui Zhang
2020-10-29
03 Rishabh Parekh Uploaded new revision
2020-10-29
02 Dan Voyer New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-02.txt
2020-10-29
02 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Daniel Voyer)
2020-10-29
02 Dan Voyer Uploaded new revision
2020-10-28
01 Rishabh Parekh New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-01.txt
2020-10-28
01 (System) New version approved
2020-10-28
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Clarence Filsfils , Daniel Voyer , Rishabh Parekh , Zhaohui Zhang , Hooman Bidgoli
2020-10-28
01 Rishabh Parekh Uploaded new revision
2020-07-26
00 Rishabh Parekh This document now replaces draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment instead of None
2020-07-26
00 Rishabh Parekh New version available: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-00.txt
2020-07-26
00 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Rishabh Parekh)
2020-07-26
00 Rishabh Parekh Uploaded new revision