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

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

Madison -

I have reviewed the changes since last revision - they have all been done to my satisfaction.
Thanx.

This revision has my approval - pending the very minor changes discussed below.
Responses inline.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Madison Church <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2023 2:14 PM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
> <[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
> 
> Hi Les,
> 
> Thank you for your reply! We have updated the document per your
> responses. We have a few followup questions/comments.
> 
> 1) Regarding this requested change:
> 
> > 1)Section 5
> >
> > "Standard Application Identifier Bit Mask:  Optional set of bits,
> >      where each bit represents a single standard application.  Bits are
> >      defined in the "Link Attribute Application Identifiers" registry,
> >      which is defined in [RFC8919]."
> >
> > The reference should be updated to be the new RFC9479.
> 
> We have updated instances of [RFC8919] to [RFC9479]. Note that RFC-to-be
> 9479 is in AUTH48; we will publish this document at the same time as RFC-to-
> be 9479.
> 
> 
> 2) Regarding this requested change:
> 
> > 2)Section 5
> >
> > "Bit 1 (S-bit):  Segment Routing Policy.  This is data plane
> >        independent."
> >
> > This format does not match the same text in RFC9479(to be) which is
> currently shown as:
> >
> > " S-bit:  Set to specify SR Policy (this is data plane independent)."
> >
> > My personal preference is to keep the parentheses.
> 
> We have updated the S-bit definition as you suggest above to keep the
> parentheses; as you note, this matches the format in RFC-to-be 9479. Would
> you also like to use parentheses for the F-bit definition to match RFC 9479?
> 
[LES:] Yes please.

> Current in this document:
>  Bit 2 (F-bit):  LFA.  Includes all LFA types.
> 
> Current in RFC 9479:
>  F-bit:  Set to specify an LFA (includes all LFA types).
> 
> 
> 3) Regarding Question 7:
> 
> > 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) -->
> 
> Within the definition list in Section 5, we left the expanded forms of “Standard
> Application Identifier Bit Mask” and “User-Defined Application Identifier Bit
> Mask” as is to match the field names in the figure directly above.  If you prefer
> to use the abbreviated forms in the definition list, please let us know. Also,
> would it be correct to add “field” to the following entries for clarity as shown
> below?

[LES:] No - please do NOT add "field". Leave the text as is.
This is consistent with RFC 9479.

   Les

> 
> Original:
> SABM Length:  Standard Application Identifier Bit Mask Length in octets.
> 
> UDABM Length:  User-Defined Application Identifier Bit Mask Length in
>     octets.
> 
> Perhaps:
> SABM Length:  Length of the Standard Application Identifier Bit Mask field in
>     octets.
> 
> UDABM Length:  Length of the User-Defined Application Identifier Bit Mask
>     field in octets.
> 
> 
> Updated XML file:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9492.xml
> 
> Updated output files:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9492.txt
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9492.pdf
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9492.html
> 
> Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9492-auth48diff.html
> 
> Diff files showing all changes:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9492-diff.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9492-rfcdiff.html (side-by-side diff)
> 
> Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the
> most recent version.
> 
> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9492
> 
> Thank you,
> RFC Editor/mc
>