--- 1/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-02.txt	2017-11-30 01:13:17.149482374 -0800
+++ 2/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-03.txt	2017-11-30 01:13:17.205483447 -0800
@@ -1,27 +1,27 @@
 
 Internet Engineering Task Force                                 N. Akiya
 Internet-Draft                                       Big Switch Networks
 Updates: 8029 (if approved)                                   G. Swallow
 Intended status: Standards Track                           Cisco Systems
-Expires: November 20, 2017                                  S. Litkowski
+Expires: June 3, 2018                                       S. Litkowski
                                                              B. Decraene
                                                                   Orange
                                                                 J. Drake
                                                         Juniper Networks
                                                                  M. Chen
                                                                   Huawei
-                                                            May 19, 2017
+                                                       November 30, 2017
 
        Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Trace Multipath Support for
                 Link Aggregation Group (LAG) Interfaces
-               draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-02
+               draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-03
 
 Abstract
 
    This document defines an extension to the MPLS Label Switched Path
    (LSP) Ping and Traceroute as specified in RFC 8029.  The extension
    allows the MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute to discover and exercise
    specific paths of Layer 2 (L2) Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) over Link
    Aggregation Group (LAG) interfaces.
 
    This document updates RFC8029.
@@ -33,36 +33,36 @@
    document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
 
 Status of This Memo
 
    This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
    provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
 
    Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
    Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
    working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
-   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
+   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
 
    Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
    and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
    time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
    material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
-   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 20, 2017.
+   This Internet-Draft will expire on June 3, 2018.
 
 Copyright Notice
 
    Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
    document authors.  All rights reserved.
 
    This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
    Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
-   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
+   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
    publication of this document.  Please review these documents
    carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
    to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
    include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
    the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
    described in the Simplified BSD License.
 
 Table of Contents
 
    1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
@@ -1141,55 +1141,55 @@
    suggestion by Yimin Shen to create two separate validation procedures
    had a big impact to the contents of this document.
 
 14.  References
 
 14.1.  Normative References
 
    [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
               DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
-              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
 
    [RFC7537]  Decraene, B., Akiya, N., Pignataro, C., Andersson, L., and
               S. Aldrin, "IANA Registries for LSP Ping Code Points",
               RFC 7537, DOI 10.17487/RFC7537, May 2015,
-              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7537>.
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7537>.
 
    [RFC8029]  Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
               Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
               Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029,
               DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
-              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.
 
 14.2.  Informative References
 
    [IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING]
               IANA, "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label
               Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters",
               <http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/
               mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xhtml>.
 
    [IEEE802.1AX]
               IEEE Std. 802.1AX, "IEEE Standard for Local and
               metropolitan area networks - Link Aggregation", November
               2008.
 
    [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
-              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
+              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
               DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
-              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
 
    [RFC7439]  George, W., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Gap Analysis for
               Operating IPv6-Only MPLS Networks", RFC 7439,
               DOI 10.17487/RFC7439, January 2015,
-              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7439>.
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7439>.
 
 Appendix A.  LAG with L2 Switch Issues
 
    Several flavors of "LAG with L2 switch" provisioning models are
    described in this section, with MPLS data plane ECMP traversal
    validation issues with each.
 
 A.1.  Equal Numbers of LAG Members
 
    R1 ==== S1 ==== R2