Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920bis-06> for your review

["Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]>]

Please see my responses inline.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 5:52 PM
> To: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <[e-mail]>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920bis-06> for your
> review
> 
> Authors,
> 
> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary)
> the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
> 
> 1) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We note that this
> XML file was submitted in "prepped" format. We have "unprepped" the file to
> make editing the document easier. Note that this does not impact the
> document
> text but does cause many changes to the XML code. -->
> 
[LES:] Understood. Out of an abundance of caution I started with the XML available from Datatracker for RFC 8920. It had a number of "strangenesses" (at least to me) - but I chose not to modify them as I wanted the text/format to be as close as possible to RFC 8920.
I wish there had been a more "up to date" version of the XML for me to start with - but there was not.

> 
> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the
> title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
> 
[LES:] None added

> 
> 3) <!-- [rfced] FYI- We have rephrased the following sentence to introduce the
> abbreviations for "Segment Routing" (SR) and "Loop-Free Alternates" (LFAs)
> upon first use. Please let us know any objections.
> 
> Original:
>    Since the original RSVP-TE use case was defined, additional
>    applications (e.g., Segment Routing Policy and Loop-Free
>    Alternates) that also make use of the link attribute
>    advertisements have been defined.
> 
> Current:
>    Since the original RSVP-TE use case was defined, additional
>    applications such as Segment Routing (SR) Policy and Loop-Free
>    Alternates (LFAs) that also make use of the link attribute
>    advertisements have been defined. -->
> 
[LES:] This is fine.

> 
> 4) <!-- [rfced] We suggest updating "SLRG group" to "SLRG" to avoid
> redundancy (if
> expanded, “SLRG group” would read “Shared Risk Link Group group”). Please
> review and let us know if any updates are needed.
> 
> Original:
>    The SRLG of a link can be used in OSPF-calculated IPFRR (IP Fast
>    Reroute) [RFC5714] to compute a backup path that does not share any
>    SRLG group with the protected link.
> 
> Perhaps:
>    The SRLG of a link can be used in OSPF-calculated IPFRR (IP Fast
>    Reroute) [RFC5714] to compute a backup path that does not share any
>    SRLG with the protected link. -->
> 
[LES:] I agree with this change.

> 
> 5) <!-- [rfced] Please review the following text. This sentence mentions Section
> 4.2, but Section 4.2 does not exist in this document. Was "Section 4.1"
> the intended text here?
> 
[LES:] The correct reference is to Section 5.
Sorry for the confusion.

> Original:
>    Link attribute advertisements associated with zero-length Application
>    Identifier Bit Masks for both standard applications and user-defined
>    applications are usable by any application, subject to the
>    restrictions specified in Section 4.2.
> 
> Perhaps:
>    Link attribute advertisements associated with zero-length Application
>    Identifier Bit Masks for both standard applications and user-defined
>    applications are usable by any application, subject to the
>    restrictions specified in Section 4.1. -->
> 
> 
> 6) <!-- [rfced] Is it intentional for RFC 9256 to be the only RFC that uses
> <displayreference> for citation tags? Please let us know if any updates are
> needed for consistency.
> 
>    [RFC9256] -> [SEGMENT-ROUTING]
> -->
[LES:] No. This is a side effect because when RFC 8920 was originally published  RFC9256 did not exist - it was still a draft. 
The same issue exists in RFC9479 - I will respond in that thread to alert the editors to that.

> 
> 
> 7) <!-- [rfced] The following expansions are defined more than once
> throughout the
> document. May we use the abbreviated form for the following expansions
> upon
> first use per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide")?
> 
>  Loop-Free Alternates (LFAs)
>  Standard Application Bit Mask (SABM)
>  Segment Routing (SR)
>  traffic engineering (TE)
>  User Defined Application Bit Mask (UDABM) -->

[LES:] Yes - please do.
> 
> 
> 8) <!-- [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.
> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should
> still be reviewed as a best practice. -->
> 
[LES:] No changes proposed .

   Les

> 
> Thank you.
> 
> RFC Editor/mc/kc
> 
> 
> On Sep 18, 2023, at 5:50 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> *****IMPORTANT*****
> 
> Updated 2023/09/18
> 
> 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/rfc9492.xml
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9492.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9492.pdf
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9492.txt
> 
> Diff file of the text:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9492-diff.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9492-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
> 
> Diff of the XML:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9492-xmldiff1.html
> 
> 
> Tracking progress
> -----------------
> 
> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9492
> 
> Please let us know if you have any questions.
> 
> Thank you for your cooperation,
> 
> RFC Editor
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC9492 (draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920bis-06)
> 
> Title            : OSPF Application-Specific Link Attributes
> Author(s)        : P. Psenak, Ed., L. Ginsberg, W. Henderickx, J. Tantsura, J. Drake
> WG Chair(s)      : Acee Lindem, Christian Hopps
> Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
> 
>