Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-15> for your review

[Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>]

Hi Madison, Ketan, 

I agree with all Ketan’s responses and would have responded with the same suggested text for 3 and RFC 8362 consistency for 10. 

Thanks,
Acee

> On Nov 7, 2023, at 23:15, Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Madison,
> 
> Please check inline below for responses.
> 
> 
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 4:42 PM Madison Church <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> Greetings,
>> 
>> This is a friendly weekly reminder that this document awaits your attention. Please review the document-specific questions and AUTH48 announcement. Let us know if we can be of assistance as you begin the AUTH48 review process.
>> 
>> The AUTH48 status page of this document is viewable at:
>>   http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9513
>> 
>> The 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/mc
>> 
>> > On Oct 30, 2023, at 7:02 PM, [e-mail] <mailto:[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. Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC
>> > Style Guide").
>> > 
>> > Original:
>> >  OSPFv3 Extensions for SRv6
>> > 
>> > Current:
>> >  OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6)
>> > -->
> 
> KT> Sounds good to me.
>  
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 2) <!-- [rfced] Registry names
>> > 
>> > a) FYI - We updated "IGP MSD Types" here to "IGP MSD-Types" (with
>> > hyphen) as we believe this refers to the registry at https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml#igp-msd-types.
>> > 
>> > Original:
>> >   These MSD Types are allocated under
>> >   the IGP MSD Types registry maintained by IANA that are shared by IS-
>> >   IS and OSPF.
>> > 
>> > Updated:
>> >   These MSD types are allocated in
>> >   the "IGP MSD-Types" registry maintained by IANA and are shared by IS-
>> >   IS and OSPF.
>> >
> 
> KT> Yes, you are correct.
>  
>> 
>> > b) FYI - We updated "IGP Algorithm Type" to "IGP Algorithm Types" ("Types"
>> > rather than "Type") per the name of the registy at
>> > https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml#igp-algorithm-types.
>> > 
>> > Original (appears multiple times in the document):
>> >   Algorithm values are
>> >   defined in the IGP Algorithm Type registry [RFC8665].
>> > 
>> > Updated:
>> >   Algorithm values are
>> >   defined in the "IGP Algorithm Types" registry [RFC8665].
>> > -->
> 
> KT> Yes, you are correct
>  
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 3) <!-- [rfced] We have updated "as defined in [RFC8986] flavors" as
>> > follows. Please review.
>> > 
>> > Original:
>> >   The Maximum End Pop MSD Type signals the maximum number of SIDs in
>> >   the SRH to which the router can apply "Penultimate Segment Pop (PSP)
>> >   of the SRH" or "Ultimate Segment Pop (USP) of the SRH", as defined in
>> >   [RFC8986] flavors. 
>> > 
>> > Perhaps: 
>> >   The Maximum End Pop MSD Type signals the maximum number of SIDs in
>> >   the SRH to which the router can apply "Penultimate Segment Pop (PSP)
>> >   of the SRH" or "Ultimate Segment Pop (USP) of the SRH", which are
>> >   defined flavors in [RFC8986].  
>> > -->
> 
> KT> One small suggestion on your proposal if that works better ...
> 
> Proposed:
> ... which are defined flavors in [RFC8986].
> 
> New Suggestion:
> ... which are flavors defined in [RFC8986].
>  
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 4) <!-- [rfced] Should this note be in the <aside> element? The <aside> element
>> > 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 drop behavior depends on the absence of a
>> >   default/summary route matching the locator prefix.
>> > -->
> 
> KT> Sure, this could be framed as an "aside" element.
>  
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 5) <!-- [rfced] We suggest rephrasing the following sentence for
>> > readability. Does the suggested text below retain your intended meaning?
>> > 
>> > Original: 
>> > The procedures for OSPFv3 Flexible Algorithm for SR-MPLS, as
>> > specified in [RFC9350], like ASBR reachability, inter-area, external, and NSSA
>> > prefix advertisements and their use in Flexible Algorithm route computation
>> > also apply for SRv6.
>> > 
>> > Perhaps: 
>> > The procedures for OSPFv3 Flexible Algorithm for SR-MPLS as
>> > specified in [RFC9350] also apply for SRv6 (e.g., ASBR reachability and
>> > inter-area, external, and NSSA prefix advertisements and their use in
>> > Flexible Algorithm route computation).
>> > -->
> 
> KT> The procedures are: (a) ASBR reachability, (b) inter-area, external and NSSA prefix advertisements, (c) the use of those prefix advertisements in Flexible Algorithm route computation. I hope this clarifies the intent?
>  
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 6) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We updated "Up to 16-octet field" to "1-16 octets" for
>> > clarity. Please review.
>> > 
>> > Original:
>> >   Locator: Up to 16-octet field.  This field encodes the advertised
>> >   SRv6 Locator as an IPv6 Prefix as specified in section A.4.1 of
>> >   [RFC5340].
>> > 
>> > Updated:
>> >   Locator:
>> >      1-16 octets.  This field encodes the advertised SRv6
>> >      locator as an IPv6 Prefix as specified in Appendix A.4.1 of
>> >      [RFC5340].      
>> > -->
> 
> KT> Yes, your proposed text is better.
>  
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 7) <!-- [rfced] We do not see "END behavior" (with all caps) in RFC 8986, though
>> > we do see "End behavior" (initial caps). Please review and let us know
>> > if any updates are needed here.
>> > 
>> > Original:
>> >   Every SRv6-enabled OSPFv3 router SHOULD
>> >   advertise at least one SRv6 SID associated with an END behavior for
>> >   itself as specified in [RFC8986], although it MAY omit doing so if
>> >   that node is not going to be used as a Segment Endpoint (e.g., for TE
>> >   or TI-LFA) by any SR Source Node.
>> > -->
> 
> KT> Indeed, it is "End".
>  
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 8) <!-- [rfced] We have included some specific questions about the IANA text in
>> > the document. In addition to responding to those questions, please
>> > review all of the IANA-related updates carefully and let us know if any
>> > updates are needed.
>> > 
>> > a) FYI - We have updated the IANA section to use tables for improved readability. 
>> >
> 
> KT> Looks good. Thanks.
>  
>> 
>> > 
>> > b) Section 13.8: May we update the range as follows to match the range listed
>> > in the "OSPFv3 SRv6 Locator LSA TLVs" registry? We know that values 0 and 1
>> > are assigned by this document. Link to registry:
>> > https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters/ospfv3-parameters.xhtml#srv6-locator-lsa
>> > 
>> > Original:
>> >   Types in the range 2-32767 are allocated via IETF Review or IESG
>> >   Approval [RFC8126].
>> > 
>> > Perhaps:
>> >   Types in the range 0-32767 are allocated via IETF Review or IESG
>> >   Approval [RFC8126].
> 
> KT> Agree.
>  
>> > 
>> > 
>> > c) Section 13.9: May we update the range as follows to match the range listed
>> > in the "OSPFv3 SRv6 Locator LSA Sub-TLVs" registry? We know that values 0-5
>> > and 10 are assigned by this document. Link to registry:
>> > https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters/ospfv3-parameters.xhtml#srv6-locator-lsa-sub-tlvs.
>> > 
>> > Original:
>> >   Types in the range 6-9 and 11-32767 are allocated via IETF Review or
>> >   IESG Approval [RFC8126].
>> > 
>> > Perhaps:
>> >   Types in the range 0-32767 are allocated via IETF Review or
>> >   IESG Approval [RFC8126].
> 
> KT> Agree.
>  
>> > 
>> > 
>> > d) Sections 13.9 and 13.10: We updated the notes in these sections as follows
>> > (it may be easier to see the changes in the diff file). Please review and let
>> > us know any objections.
>> > 
>> > Note that we will ask IANA to update these notes in the "OSPFv3 SRv6 Locator
>> > LSA TLVs" and "OSPFv3 SRv6 Locator LSA Sub-TLVs" registries, respectively, to
>> > match the edited document prior to publication.
>> > 
>> > Links to registries:
>> > https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters/ospfv3-parameters.xhtml#srv6-locator-lsa
>> > https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters/ospfv3-parameters.xhtml#srv6-locator-lsa-sub-tlvs
>> > 
>> > Original:
>> >   Note: Allocations made under this registry for any sub-TLVs that are
>> >   associated with OSPFv3 SRv6 Locator TLVs MUST be also evaluated for
>> >   their applicability as OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs and, therefore,
>> >   also requiring allocation under the "OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs"
>> >   registry.
>> >   ...
>> >   Note: Allocations made under this registry for any sub-TLVs that are
>> >   associated with OSPFv3 Extended TLVs related to prefix advertisements
>> >   MUST be also evaluated for their applicability as OSPFv3 SRv6 Locator
>> >   Sub-TLVs and, therefore, also requiring allocation under the "OSPFv3
>> >   SRv6 Locator LSA Sub-TLVs" registry.
>> > 
>> > Updated:
>> >   |  Note: Allocations made in this registry for sub-TLVs that are
>> >   |  associated with OSPFv3 SRv6 Locator TLVs MUST be evaluated for
>> >   |  their applicability as OSPFv3 Extended-LSA sub-TLVs, which are
>> >   |  required to be allocated in the "OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs"
>> >   |  registry.
>> >   ...
>> >   |  Note: Allocations made in this registry for sub-TLVs that are
>> >   |  associated with OSPFv3 Extended TLVs related to prefix
>> >   |  advertisements MUST be evaluated for their applicability as OSPFv3
>> >   |  SRv6 Locator sub-TLVs, which are required to be allocated in
>> >   |  the "OSPFv3 SRv6 Locator LSA Sub-TLVs" registry.
>> > -->
> 
> KT> Agree
>  
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 9) <!-- [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. -->
> 
> KT> Looks good to me.
>  
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 10) <!-- [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.
>> > 
>> > LSA  
>> > NSSA  
>> > TI-LFA 
>> > -->
> 
> KT> Thanks
>  
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 11) <!-- [rfced] Are the terms "legacy OSPFv3 LSA" and "OSPFv3 legacy LSA" interchangeable? If so, we suggest using one or the other for consistency throughout the document. 
>> > 
>> > Original (legacy OSPFv3 LSA): 
>> >  When operating in Extended LSA sparse-mode [RFC8362], these
>> >  locators SHOULD be also advertised using legacy OSPFv3 LSAs [RFC5340].
>> > 
>> > Original (OSPFv3 legacy LSA): 
>> >  In cases where a locator advertisement is received both in a
>> >  prefix reachability advertisement... the prefix reachability advertisement in
>> >  the OSPFv3 legacy LSA or Extended LSA MUST be preferred over the advertisement
>> >  in the SRv6 Locator TLV when installing entries in the forwarding plane.
>> > -->
> 
> KT> RFC8362 introduced this term and it was referred to as "Legacy LSA". I think we can stick to that term (with capitalization) and skip "OSPFv3" since it is understood as an OSPFv3 protocol specification. The other term is "Extended LSA".
> 
> Thanks,
> Ketan
> 
>  
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Thank you.
>> > 
>> > RFC Editor/mc/rv
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On Oct 30, 2023, at 5:00 PM, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > 
>> > *****IMPORTANT*****
>> > 
>> > Updated 2023/10/30
>> > 
>> > 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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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/rfc9513.xml
>> >  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9513.html
>> >  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9513.pdf
>> >  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9513.txt
>> > 
>> > Diff file of the text:
>> >  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9513-diff.html
>> >  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9513-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>> > 
>> > Alt-diff of the text (allows you to more easily view changes 
>> > where text has been deleted or moved): 
>> >  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9513-alt-diff.html
>> > 
>> > Diff of the XML: 
>> >  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9513-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/rfc9513.original.v2v3.xml
>> > 
>> > XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
>> > only: 
>> >  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9513.form.xml
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Tracking progress
>> > -----------------
>> > 
>> > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>> >  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9513
>> > 
>> > Please let us know if you have any questions.  
>> > 
>> > Thank you for your cooperation,
>> > 
>> > RFC Editor
>> > 
>> > --------------------------------------
>> > RFC9513 (draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-15)
>> > 
>> > Title            : OSPFv3 Extensions for SRv6
>> > Author(s)        : Z. Li, Z. Hu, K. Talaulikar, Ed., P. Psenak
>> > WG Chair(s)      : Acee Lindem, Christian Hopps
>> > Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston