Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9296 <draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-12> for your review
rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Mon, 08 August 2022 21:09 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
X-Original-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD707C15A729; Mon, 8 Aug 2022 14:09:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.662
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.662 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CTE_8BIT_MISMATCH=0.998, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZAh3k-Ae2F-d; Mon, 8 Aug 2022 14:09:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (rfc-editor.org [50.223.129.200]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9AC5C157B37; Mon, 8 Aug 2022 14:09:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id B20B4194CBB0; Mon, 8 Aug 2022 14:09:41 -0700 (PDT)
To: harold.liu@ericsson.com, joel.halpern@ericsson.com, congjie.zhang@ericsson.com
From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org, rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20220808210941.B20B4194CBB0@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2022 14:09:41 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/14r7We72neMtTMzCtLbSV00nZe0>
Subject: Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9296 <draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-12> for your review
X-BeenThere: auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Archiving AUTH48 exchanges between the RFC Production Center, the authors, and other related parties" <auth48archive.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/>
List-Post: <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2022 21:09:45 -0000
Authors, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file. 1) <!-- [rfced] The document's title creates some hyphenation questions, and we are curious if we could get a better matchup between the title and the rest of the document's stated purpose (see the final line of the Introduction's penultimate paragraph). Please review this suggested update and let us know if this, or another title of your suggestion, might work. Original: Interface Stack Table Definition and Example for Point-to-Point (P2P) Interface over LAN Perhaps: ifStackTable for the Point-to-Point (P2P) Interface over a LAN Type: Definition and Examples Original from the penultimate paragraph of the introduction: So the purpose of this document is to request IANA to add this document as a reference to ifType 303, as well as suggest how to use ifStackTable for the P2P interface over LAN type, and provide examples. --> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> 3) <!--[rfced] There appears to be a slight mismatch in these two very similar phrases from the Abstract and Introduction. Please review and let us know if/how they should be made uniform. Specifically, see the difference between "the P2P interface over LAN ifType" vs. "a P2P interface over LAN type". Original Abstract: This document provides advice about the ifStack for the P2P interface over LAN ifType to facilitate operational control, maintenance and statistics. Original Introduction: ... an interface is to be considered a P2P interface over LAN type explicitly in the interface stack. --> 4) <!-- [rfced] May we update "P2P interface lower layer" to "lower layer of the P2P interface"? Original: If no entry specifies the P2P interface lower layer, management tools lose the ability to retrieve and measure properties specific to lower layers. --> 5) <!--[rfced] The following paragraph is basically a single sentence that uses back-to-back clauses beginning with the relative pronoun "that". Please review our suggested update and check whether your intended meaning has been preserved. I In addition, is to what does "LAN type higher layer" refer and "LAN type lower layer" refer? Perhaps "P2P over higher/lower-layer LAN protocols" or "higher/lower-layer P2P interface over LAN", or "higher/lower-layer-if"? Please let us know how this text may be clarified and that we may want to apply a similar update where these phrases are used throughout the document. Original: The P2P interface over LAN type is intended to be used solely as a means to signal in standard network management protocols that make use of ifStackTables that the upper layer interface is P2P interface, and thus the upper and lower layers of P2P over LAN type will be expected to apply appropriate semantics: In general, P2P over LAN type higher layer SHOULD always be "ipForward" (Value 142, [Assignment]), and the P2P over LAN type lower layer SHOULD be any appropriate link data layer of "ipForward". Perhaps: In standard network management protocols that make use of ifStackTables, the P2P interface over a LAN type is intended to be used solely as a means to signal that the upper-layer interface is a P2P interface. Thus, the upper and lower layers of P2P over a LAN type are expected to apply appropriate semantics. In general, a P2P over a LAN type higher layer SHOULD always be "ipForward" (value 142 in [Assignment]), and the P2P over a LAN type lower layer SHOULD be any appropriate link-data layer of "ipForward". --> 6) <!-- [rfced] Would it make sense to udpate this text as follows: Original: So the purpose of this document is to request IANA to add this document as a reference to ifType 303, as well as suggest how to use ifStackTable for the P2P interface over LAN type, and provide examples. Perhaps: The purpose of this document is to serve as a reference for ifType 303 by suggesting how the ifStackTable for the P2P interface over a LAN type is to be used and providing examples. --> 7) <!-- [rfced] What is 'in "Interface Management YANG"' referring to? Is it the IETF interfaces YANG module? The title of RFC 8343? How can we update? Original: If a device implements the IF-MIB [RFC2863], each entry in the "/interfaces/interface" list (in "Interface Management YANG") in the operational state is typically mapped to one ifEntry as required in [RFC8343]. Perhaps A: If a device implements the IF-MIB [RFC2863], then each entry in the "/interfaces/interface" list (see the ietf-interfaces YANG module [RFC8343]) in the operational state is typically mapped to one ifEntry as required in [RFC8343]. Perhaps B: If a device implements the IF-MIB [RFC2863], then each entry in the "/interfaces/interface" list (see "A YANG Data Model for Interface Management" [RFC8343]) in the operational state is typically mapped to one ifEntry as required in [RFC8343]. --> 8) <!-- [rfced] Please be more specific regarding the text "defined in IANA". Is this meant to point the reader to the iana-if-type YANG Module <https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/iana-if-type@2022-03-07.yang>? Also note that we are having a tough time parsing "LAN type higher layer" and "LAN type lower layer" here. Original: In ifStackTable the P2P interface over LAN type higher layer SHALL be network layer "ipForward" to enable IP routing, and the P2P interface over LAN type lower layer SHOULD be any link data layer that can be bound to "ipForward" including "ethernetCsmacd", "ieee8023adLag", "l2vlan", and so on (defined in IANA). --> 9) <!-- [rfced] IANA indicates that they will complete these actions closer to the time of publication per instructions from the YANG doctors. For our clarity, does "YANG iana-if-type module" refer to https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/iana-if-type@2022-03-07.yang? If yes, is the reference to RFC 8561 correct? We only see the following that refer to RFC 8561: identity microwaveCarrierTermination { base iana-interface-type; description "air interface of a single microwave carrier."; reference "RFC 8561 - A YANG Data Model for Microwave Radio Link"; } identity microwaveRadioLinkTerminal { base iana-interface-type; description "radio link interface for one or several aggregated microwave carriers."; reference "RFC 8561 - A YANG Data Model for Microwave Radio Link"; Original: IANA is requested to amend the reference for that code point to be to this document and to make a similar amendment in the YANG iana-if-type module (originally specified in [RFC7224]) which currently points to [RFC8561], as this document explains how the ifType is to be used. --> 10) <!-- [rfced] Should "LAG" be expanded as Link Aggregation Group or something else? Original: In the case of underlying interface is LAG, the ifStackTable should be defined as: --> Thank you. RFC Editor On Aug 8, 2022, at 2:06 PM, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2022/08/08 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 * rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org (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). * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, 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, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org 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/rfc9296.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9296.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9296.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9296.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9296-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9296-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9296-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/rfc9296.original.v2v3.xml XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates only: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9296.form.xml Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9296 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC9296 (draft-liu-lsr-p2poverlan-12) Title : Interface Stack Table Definition and Example for Point-to-Point (P2P) Interface over LAN Author(s) : D. Liu, J. Halpern, C. Zhang WG Chair(s) : Area Director(s) :
- [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9296 <draft-liu-lsr-p2… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9296 <draft-liu-ls… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9296 <draft-liu-ls… Harold Liu
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9296 <draft-liu-ls… Joel Halpern
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9296 <draft-liu-ls… Karen Moore
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9296 <draft-liu-ls… Harold Liu
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9296 <draft-liu-ls… Joel Halpern
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9296 <draft-liu-ls… Karen Moore
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9296 <draft-liu-ls… Congjie Zhang
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9296 <draft-liu-ls… Harold Liu
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9296 <draft-liu-ls… Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9296 <draft-liu-ls… Karen Moore
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9296 <draft-liu-ls… Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9296 <draft-liu-ls… Karen Moore
- [auth48] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9296 <draft… Karen Moore
- [auth48] [IANA #1238232] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-t… Amanda Baber via RT
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9296 <draft-liu-ls… Joel Halpern
- Re: [auth48] [IANA #1238232] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: R… Karen Moore
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9296 <draft-liu-ls… Karen Moore