Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 <draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-12> for your review

[[e-mail]]

Dear Lynne,

I approve the document for publication in its current form.
Thanks for your hard work.


Regards,
Bin

-----Original Message-----
From: Lynne Bartholomew <> 
Sent: Saturday, August 6, 2022 4:05 AM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 윤빈영 <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: John Scudder <[e-mail]>; Jeong-dong Ryoo <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; RFC System <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 <draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-12> for your review

Dear Jia, Italo, Bin, and Peter,

We do not believe that we have heard from you regarding this document's readiness for publication.

Please review the updated files, and let us know whether further changes are needed or you approve the document for publication in its current form.

The latest files are posted here:

   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.txt
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.xml
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-alt-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-rfcdiff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-auth48diff.html

   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-xmldiff1.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-xmldiff2.html

The AUTH48 status page is here:

   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9270

Thank you!

RFC Editor/lb

> On Jul 22, 2022, at 2:17 PM, Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi, John.  We have noted your approval:
> 
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9270
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> RFC Editor/lb
> 
>> On Jul 21, 2022, at 8:29 AM, John Scudder <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Lynne,
>> 
>>> On Jul 15, 2022, at 8:13 PM, Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear Jeong-dong and *AD (John),
>>> 
>>> * John, per our process, we will need your approval for the removal of "MUST" in Section 4, Paragraph 2 (just after Figure 1).
>> 
>> Yes, this change is fine, thanks for checking.
>> 
>> —John
> 

> From: Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 
> <draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-12> for your review
> Date: July 19, 2022 at 12:55:55 PM PDT
> To: Jeong-dong Ryoo <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail], John Scudder <[e-mail]>, 
> [e-mail], [e-mail], 윤빈영 <[e-mail]>, 
> [e-mail], RFC System <[e-mail]>, 
> [e-mail], Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]>, 
> [e-mail]
> 
> Dear Jeong-dong,
> 
> We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page:
> 
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9270
> 
> Thank you very much!
> 
> RFC Editor/lb
> 
>> On Jul 18, 2022, at 6:09 PM, Jeong-dong Ryoo <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Lynne,
>> 
>> Thank you for the updates. They are all good to me. I hope the outstanding issue related to the removal of "MUST" will be finalized according to the response from our AD, John. 
>> 
>> Thanks again.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Jeong-dong
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:  "Lynne Bartholomew" <[e-mail]>
>> To:     "Jeong-dong Ryoo" <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;  "John Scudder" <[e-mail]>; 
>> Cc:      <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;  "윤빈영" <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;  "RFC System" <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;  "Vishnu Pavan Beeram" <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>; 
>> Sent:  2022-07-16 (토) 09:14:14 (UTC+09:00)
>> Subject: *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 
>> <draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-12> for your review
>> 
>> Dear Jeong-dong and *AD (John),
>> 
>> * John, per our process, we will need your approval for the removal of "MUST" in Section 4, Paragraph 2 (just after Figure 1).
>> 
>> Jeong-dong, thank you for your prompt reply!  We have updated this document per your notes below.
>> 
>> The latest files are posted here:
>> 
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.txt
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.pdf
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.html
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.xml
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-diff.html
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-rfcdiff.html
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-auth48diff.html
>> 
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-alt-diff.html
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-xmldiff1.html
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-xmldiff2.html
>> 
>> Thanks again for your quick reply and help!
>> 
>> RFC Editor/lb
>> 
>>> On Jul 14, 2022, at 7:00 PM, Jeong-dong Ryoo <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear RFC Editor,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thank you for your email. 
>>> 
>>> Please, see my answers to your questions as follows:
>>> 
>>> 1) Thank you for the improvements you've done. I am ok with the changes.
>>> 
>>> 2) As you pointed out, I couldn't find the "MUST" as related to RFC 3209, either. I suggest the following change (removing MUST):
>>> 
>>> OLD:
>>> Per RFC
>>> 3209 [RFC3209], in order to achieve resource sharing during the 
>>> signaling of these protecting LSPs, they MUST have the same Tunnel 
>>> Endpoint Address (as part of their SESSION object).
>>> 
>>> NEW:
>>> Per RFC
>>> 3209 [RFC3209], in order to achieve resource sharing during the 
>>> signaling of these protecting LSPs, they have the same Tunnel 
>>> Endpoint Address (as part of their SESSION object).
>>> 
>>> 3) According to the definition and usage of the <aside> element, it looks like there will be no problem putting the "Note:" in the <aside> element. But, I don't know what the resulting text looks like if the <aside> element is used. Nevertheless, I should be ok as long as the text is there.
>>> 
>>> 4) Thank you for taking a close look at those reference documents as well. Both  expressions are understood to be the same. I would like to keep object names consistent in this document by making them all uppercase.
>>> 
>>> 5) Yes, it means "preemption status". I am fine with your suggestion.
>>> 
>>> 6) "SMP" in the "SMP protecting LSP" is not really necessary. Since we use "protecting  LSP" throughout this document except Section 5.6, please, replace "SMP protecting LSP" with "protecting LSP" in Section 5.6.    
>>> 
>>> 7) Sorry for the confusion. Suggestion #1 is correct.
>>> 
>>> 8) Your change is good.
>>> 
>>> 9) I am aware of the terms related to the "inclusive language" and tried not to use them. I don't think any changes are needed. 
>>> 
>>> 10) No objection. Thank you for the consistency check.
>>> 
>>> Thank you.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> 
>>> Jeong-dong
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From:  "" <[e-mail]>
>>> To:      <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>; 
>>> Cc:      <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>; 
>>> Sent:  2022-07-13 (수) 07:37:12 (UTC+09:00)
>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 
>>> <draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-12> 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] Abbreviated (running) title (.pdf output) and body 
>>> of
>>> document:  Because this document and RFC 4872 state that they define 
>>> extensions (i.e., more than one extension) for GMPLS signaling, we 
>>> changed "extension" to "extensions" as noted below.  Please review, 
>>> and let us know any concerns.
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> GMPLS Extension for SMP
>>> ...
>>> 4.  Operation of SMP with GMPLS Signaling Extension . . . . . . .   5
>>> 5.  GMPLS Signaling Extension for SMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
>>> ...
>>> RFC 4872 [RFC4872] defines extension of Resource Reservation 
>>> Protocol
>>> - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support Shared Mesh Restoration
>>> (SMR) mechanisms.
>>> 
>>> Currently:
>>> GMPLS Extensions for SMP
>>> ...
>>> 4.  Operation of SMP with GMPLS Signaling Extensions 5.  GMPLS 
>>> Signaling Extensions for SMP ...
>>> RFC 4872 [RFC4872] defines extensions for Resource Reservation 
>>> Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support Shared Mesh 
>>> Restoration (SMR) mechanisms. -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Section 4:  We could not verify the "MUST" as 
>>> related to RFC 3209.  Please verify that this text is correct and 
>>> will be clear to readers.
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> Per RFC
>>> 3209 [RFC3209], in order to achieve resource sharing during the 
>>> signaling of these protecting LSPs, they MUST have the same Tunnel 
>>> Endpoint Address (as part of their SESSION object). -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 3) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.2:  Please review whether this "Note:" 
>>> item should be in the <aside> element.  <aside> is defined as "a 
>>> container for content that is semantically less important or 
>>> tangential to the content that surrounds it"
>>> (https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/xml2rfc-doc.html#name-aside-2).
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> Note: N bit is set to indicate that the protection switching 
>>> signaling is done via data plane. -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.3:  We see that RFC 3473 uses "Admin_Status"
>>> instead of "ADMIN_STATUS", while RFCs 4872 and 4873 use 
>>> "ADMIN_STATUS".  However, RFC 4873 also uses "Admin_Status".  Will 
>>> these distinctions be clear to readers?
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> The formerly working LSP MAY be signaled with the A bit set in the 
>>> ADMIN_STATUS object (see [RFC3473]). -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.4:  Does "preempted situation" mean 
>>> "preemption status" or something else?  If the suggested text is not 
>>> correct, please clarify.
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> Once the working LSP and the
>>> protecting LSP are configured or pre-configured, the end node MUST 
>>> keep refreshing both working and protecting LSPs regardless of 
>>> failure or preempted situation.
>>> 
>>> Suggested:
>>> Once the working LSP and the
>>> protecting LSP are configured or preconfigured, the end node MUST 
>>> keep refreshing both working and protecting LSPs, regardless of 
>>> failure or preemption status. -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.6:  Do these four instances of "SMP 
>>> protecting LSP" mean "SMP's protecting LSP", "protecting LSP for 
>>> SMP", or something else?
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> SMP relies on APS protocol messages being exchanged between the 
>>> nodes along the path to activate an SMP protecting LSP.
>>> 
>>> In order to allow the exchange of APS protocol messages, an APS 
>>> channel has to be configured between adjacent nodes along the path 
>>> of the SMP protecting LSP.  This is done by other means than GMPLS 
>>> signaling, before any SMP protecting LSP has been set up.  
>>> Therefore, there are likely additional requirements for APS 
>>> configuration which are outside the scope of this document.
>>> 
>>> Depending on the APS protocol message format, the APS protocol may 
>>> use different identifiers than GMPLS signaling to identify the SMP 
>>> protecting LSP. -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 7) <!-- [rfced] Section 6.2:  We had trouble determining what is 
>>> "only applicable" in this sentence, because of the comma after "1".  
>>> If neither suggestion below is correct, please clarify.
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> The O bit is only
>>> applicable when the P bit is set to 1, and the LSP Protection Type 
>>> Flag is set to 0x04 (1:N Protection with Extra-Traffic), 0x08 (1+1 
>>> Unidirectional Protection), 0x10 (1+1 Bidirectional Protection), or 
>>> 0x20 (Shared Mesh Protection).
>>> 
>>> Suggestion #1 (only applicable when (1) and (2) are applied):
>>> The O bit is only
>>> applicable when (1) the P bit is set to 1 and (2) the LSP Protection 
>>> Type Flag is set to 0x04 (1:N Protection with Extra-Traffic), 0x08
>>> (1+1 Unidirectional Protection), 0x10 (1+1 Bidirectional 
>>> Protection), or 0x20 (Shared Mesh Protection).
>>> 
>>> Suggestion #2 (only applicable when the P bit is set to 1):
>>> The O bit is only
>>> applicable when the P bit is set to 1.  Also, the LSP Protection 
>>> Type Flag is set to 0x04 (1:N Protection with Extra-Traffic),
>>> 0x08 (1+1 Unidirectional Protection), 0x10 (1+1 Bidirectional 
>>> Protection), or 0x20 (Shared Mesh Protection). -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Section 6.3:  This paragraph was difficult to 
>>> follow; for example, "several fields from that field" reads oddly.  
>>> Also, the fourth sentence appeared to conflict with Section 1, 
>>> Paragraph 1, last sentence of this document, as well as Section 9.2 of RFC 4873.
>>> We updated the text as follows.  Please review carefully, and let us 
>>> know if anything is incorrect.
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> [RFC4872] reserved a 32-bit field in the PROTECTION object header.
>>> Subsequently, [RFC4873] allocated several fields from that field, 
>>> and left the remainder of the bits reserved.  This specification 
>>> further allocates the preemption priority field from those 
>>> formerly-reserved bits.  The 32-bit field in the PROTECTION object 
>>> defined in [RFC4873] are updated as follows:
>>> 
>>> Currently (the subject-verb disagreement in the fourth sentence has 
>>> been corrected):
>>> [RFC4872] reserved a 32-bit field in the PROTECTION object header.
>>> Subsequently, [RFC4873] allocated several bits from that field and 
>>> left the remainder of the bits reserved.  This specification further 
>>> allocates the Preemption Priority field from the remaining formerly 
>>> reserved bits.  The 32-bit field in the PROTECTION object as defined 
>>> in [RFC4872] and modified by [RFC4873] is updated by this document 
>>> as
>>> follows: -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 9) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of 
>>> the online Style Guide at 
>>> <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 or phrases. -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 10) <!-- [rfced] The following terms were used inconsistently in 
>>> this document.  We chose to use the latter forms.  Please let us 
>>> know any objections.
>>> 
>>> LSP protection type / LSP Protection Type (per RFC 4872)
>>> 
>>> Protection Object / PROTECTION object (in text) (per RFC 4872, with 
>>> one exception, which appears to be an oversight) -->
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thank you.
>>> 
>>> RFC Editor
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jul 12, 2022, at 3:32 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>> 
>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>> 
>>> Updated 2022/07/12
>>> 
>>> 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-4Q9l2US
>>> xIAe6P8O4Zc
>>> 
>>>  *  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/rfc9270.xml
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.html
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.pdf
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.txt
>>> 
>>> Diff file of the text:
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-diff.html
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-rfcdiff.html (side by 
>>> side)
>>> 
>>> For your convenience, we have also created an alt-diff file that 
>>> will allow you to more easily view changes where text has been 
>>> deleted or
>>> moved:
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-alt-diff.html
>>> 
>>> Diff of the XML: 
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-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/rfc9270.original.v2v3.xml
>>> 
>>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format 
>>> updates
>>> only: 
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.form.xml
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Tracking progress
>>> -----------------
>>> 
>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9270
>>> 
>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.  
>>> 
>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>>> 
>>> RFC Editor
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> RFC9270 (draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-12)
>>> 
>>> Title            : GMPLS Signaling Extensions for Shared Mesh Protection
>>> Author(s)        : J. He, I. Busi, J. Ryoo, B. Yoon, P. Park
>>> WG Chair(s)      : Vishnu Pavan Beeram, Lou Berger
>>> 
>>> Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
>>> 
>>>