Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9491 <draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-15> for your review

[Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sarah,

Apologies for the delay, I’m fine with the changes as proposed and addressed by Jim.

Thanks,
Jeff

> On Oct 10, 2023, at 5:46 AM, Sarah Tarrant <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> Just a friendly weekly reminder that this document awaits your attention. 
> 
> Please see the document-specific questions and AUTH48 announcement in this thread and let us know if we can be of assistance as you begin the AUTH48 review process.
> 
> Please note that the AUTH48 status page of this document is viewable at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9491
> 
> AUTH48 FAQs are available at https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/#auth48.
> 
> We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
> 
> Thank you.
> RFC Editor/st
> 
>> On Oct 3, 2023, at 6:39 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>> 
>> Authors,
>> 
>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>> 
>> 1) <!--[rfced] Please note that the title of the document has been updated as follows. "the" has been added before "Network Service Header".
>> 
>> Original:
>>  Integration of Network Service Header (NSH) and Segment Routing for
>>  Service Function Chaining (SFC)
>> 
>> Current:
>>  Integration of the Network Service Header (NSH) and Segment Routing for
>>  Service Function Chaining (SFC)
>> -->
>> 
>> 
>> 2) <!--[rfced] For clarity, may we change "while" to "whereas" here? This
>> would make it clear that the intended meaning is a contrast rather than
>> "at the same time".
>> 
>> Original:
>>  Combining these technologies allows SR to be used for steering
>>  packets between Service Function Forwarders (SFF) along a given
>>  Service Function Path (SFP) while NSH has the responsibility for
>>  maintaining the integrity of the service plane, the SFC instance
>>  context, and any associated metadata.
>> 
>> Perhaps:
>>  Combining these technologies allows SR to be used for steering
>>  packets between Service Function Forwarders (SFFs) along a given
>>  Service Function Path (SFP), whereas the NSH is responsible for
>>  maintaining the integrity of the service plane, the SFC instance
>>  context, and any associated metadata.
>> -->
>> 
>> 
>> 3) <!--[rfced] As this document expands "SFC" as "Service Function Chaining",
>> should "SFC" be updated to "service function chain" in the instances below?
>> 
>> Original:
>>  The two SR data plane encapsulations, namely SR-MPLS [RFC8660] and
>>  SRv6 [RFC8754], can both encode an SF as a segment so that an SFC can
>>  be specified as a segment list.
>>  ...
>>  *  SR-based SFC with integrated NSH service plane: in this scenario
>>     each service hop of the SFC is represented as a segment of the SR
>>     segment-list.
>>  ...      
>>  Referring to Figure 1, packets of flow F in DC1 are classified into
>>  an NSH-based SFC and encapsulated after classification as <Inner
>>  Pkt><NSH: SPI 100, SI 255><Outer-transport> and forwarded to SFF1
>>  (which is the first SFF hop for this service function chain).      
>> 
>> Perhaps:
>>  The two SR data plane encapsulations, namely SR-MPLS [RFC8660] and
>>  SRv6 [RFC8754], can encode an SF as a segment so that a service function
>>  chain can be specified as a segment list.
>>  ...
>>  SR-based SFC with integrated NSH service plane:
>>     In this scenario, each service hop of the service function chain is
>>     represented as a segment of the SR segment list.
>>  ...
>>  Referring to Figure 1, packets of flow F in DC1 are classified into
>>  an NSH-based service function chain, encapsulated after classification as
>>  <Inner Pkt><NSH: SPI 100, SI 255><Outer-transport>, and forwarded to SFF1
>>  (which is the first SFF hop for this service function chain).      
>> -->   
>> 
>> 
>> 4) <!--[rfced] May we update this sentence for clarity?
>> 
>> Original:
>>  A classifier MUST use an NSH Service Path Identifier (SPI) per SR
>>  policy so that different traffic flows that use the same NSH Service
>>  Function Path (SFP) but different SR policy can coexist on the same
>>  SFP without conflict during SFF processing.
>> 
>> Perhaps:
>>  A classifier MUST use one NSH Service Path Identifier (SPI) for each
>>  SR policy so that different traffic flows can use the same NSH Service
>>  Function Path (SFP) and different SR policies can coexist on the same
>>  SFP without conflict during SFF processing.
>> -->   
>> 
>> 
>> 5) <!-- [rfced] FYI, we removed the extraneous comma on line 7 of Figure 4. Please
>> let us know if there are any objections.
>> 
>> Original:
>>  |N(100,255) | ... |N(100,253) |                                       ,
>> 
>> Current:
>>  |N(100,255) | ... |N(100,253) |
>> -->
>> 
>> 
>> 6) <!--[rfced] In Section 5.2, we have formatted text as sourcecode and
>> set the type attribute to "pseudocode" to reflect what appears in
>> Section 4.3.1.1 of RFC 8754. Please review to ensure correctness.
>> -->
>> 
>> 
>> 7) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether the following note should be in
>> the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container for content that
>> is semantically less important or tangential to the content that
>> surrounds it" (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside).
>> 
>> Original:
>>  Note: The End.NSH behavior interrupts the normal SRH packet
>>  processing as described in [RFC8754] section 4.3.1.1, which does not
>>  continue to S16 at this time.
>> --> 
>> 
>> 
>> 8) <!--[rfced] Should Table 2 be updated to include the Hex and Change Controller
>> columns to match what appears in the "SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors” registry (see
>> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/segment-routing/segment-routing.xhtml>)?
>> -->
>> 
>> 
>> 9) <!-- [rfced] This text indicates the affiliations (and authors) provided
>> valuable input and text contributions. Is this as intended? Or was it the
>> authors only (not the affiliations) that contributed this way?
>> 
>> Original:
>>  The following co-authors, along with their respective affiliations at
>>  the time of publication, provided valuable inputs and text contributions
>>  to this document.
>> -->
>> 
>> 
>> 10) <!-- [rfced] Terminology
>> 
>> a) Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used
>> inconsistently. We have updated to use "Prefix-SID" to reflect usage
>> in previously published RFCs. Please let us know of any objections.
>> 
>>  prefix SID vs. Prefix SID vs. prefix-SID vs. Prefix-SID 
>> 
>> b) We note that "SF-SFF" and "SFF-SFF" are both used in this document. Are
>> these abbreviations both used for the same term? Or are they two different
>> terms?
>> 
>> c) We note that Figure 5 contains "MPLS-SR", while the text defines
>> "SR-MPLS". May update to "SR-MPLS" to reflect usage in previously published
>> RFCs?
>> -->
>> 
>> 
>> 11) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for abbreviations upon first use
>> per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each
>> expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness.
>> 
>>  Media Access Control (MAC)
>>  SR over IPv6 (SRv6)
>>  Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP)
>> -->
>> 
>> 
>> 12) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online 
>> Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
>> and let us know if any changes are needed.
>> 
>> For example, please consider whether "master" should be updated.
>> -->
>> 
>> 
>> Thank you.
>> 
>> RFC Editor/st/ap
>> 
>> On Oct 3, 2023, at 4:38 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>> 
>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>> 
>> Updated 2023/10/03
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>>  *  [e-mail] (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).
>> 
>>  *  [e-mail], 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, 
>>       [e-mail] 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/rfc9491.xml
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491.html
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491.pdf
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491.txt
>> 
>> Diff file of the text:
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491-diff.html
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>> 
>> Diff of the XML: 
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491-xmldiff1.html
>> 
>> The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own 
>> diff files of the XML.  
>> 
>> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491.original.v2v3.xml 
>> 
>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
>> only: 
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491.form.xml
>> 
>> 
>> Tracking progress
>> -----------------
>> 
>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9491
>> 
>> Please let us know if you have any questions.  
>> 
>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>> 
>> RFC Editor
>> 
>> --------------------------------------
>> RFC9491 (draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-15)
>> 
>> Title            : Integration of Network Service Header (NSH) and Segment Routing for Service Function Chaining (SFC)
>> Author(s)        : J. Guichard, Ed., J. Tantsura, Ed.
>> WG Chair(s)      : Bruno Decraene, Alvaro Retana, Joel M. Halpern
>> 
>> Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
>> 
>> 
>