Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9491 <draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-15> for your review
Sarah Tarrant <starrant@amsl.com> Fri, 20 October 2023 15:00 UTC
Return-Path: <starrant@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 8FA46C14EB17; Fri, 20 Oct 2023 08:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.208
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.208 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 d_L5O_u2cJvF; Fri, 20 Oct 2023 08:00:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c8a.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (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 E8C9DC15107E; Fri, 20 Oct 2023 07:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2464424B432; Fri, 20 Oct 2023 07:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KVU10ojMHYmv; Fri, 20 Oct 2023 07:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [IPv6:2600:1700:8f1d:4000:955f:ee07:dc02:81d]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3EBB4424B42C; Fri, 20 Oct 2023 07:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.700.6\))
From: Sarah Tarrant <starrant@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <DCBF8919-A8B5-4D55-ACBF-3AD69CE5F670@amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2023 09:59:45 -0500
Cc: auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8E8DC6F4-876C-46DE-901A-9FBE9FA2A207@amsl.com>
References: <20231003233934.C8D3318E4B6B@rfcpa.amsl.com> <DCBF8919-A8B5-4D55-ACBF-3AD69CE5F670@amsl.com>
To: James Guichard <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com>, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, spring-ads@ietf.org, spring-chairs@ietf.org, bruno.decraene@orange.com, andrew-ietf@liquid.tech
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.700.6)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/964d1u6X-04NZnmKsMD9zD4sfKU>
Subject: Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9491 <draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-15> 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: Fri, 20 Oct 2023 15:00:12 -0000
Hello, This is a friendly reminder that we await answers to the questions below and your review of the document before continuing with the publication process. Thank you, RFC Editor/st > On Oct 10, 2023, at 7:46 AM, Sarah Tarrant <starrant@amsl.com> wrote: > > Greetings, > > Just a friendly weekly reminder that this document awaits your attention. > > Please see the document-specific questions and AUTH48 announcement in this thread and let us know if we can be of assistance as you begin the AUTH48 review process. > > Please note that the AUTH48 status page of this document is viewable at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9491 > > 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/st > >> On Oct 3, 2023, at 6:39 PM, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org 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. "the" has been added before "Network Service Header". >> >> Original: >> Integration of Network Service Header (NSH) and Segment Routing for >> Service Function Chaining (SFC) >> >> Current: >> Integration of the Network Service Header (NSH) and Segment Routing for >> Service Function Chaining (SFC) >> --> >> >> >> 2) <!--[rfced] For clarity, may we change "while" to "whereas" here? This >> would make it clear that the intended meaning is a contrast rather than >> "at the same time". >> >> Original: >> Combining these technologies allows SR to be used for steering >> packets between Service Function Forwarders (SFF) along a given >> Service Function Path (SFP) while NSH has the responsibility for >> maintaining the integrity of the service plane, the SFC instance >> context, and any associated metadata. >> >> Perhaps: >> Combining these technologies allows SR to be used for steering >> packets between Service Function Forwarders (SFFs) along a given >> Service Function Path (SFP), whereas the NSH is responsible for >> maintaining the integrity of the service plane, the SFC instance >> context, and any associated metadata. >> --> >> >> >> 3) <!--[rfced] As this document expands "SFC" as "Service Function Chaining", >> should "SFC" be updated to "service function chain" in the instances below? >> >> Original: >> The two SR data plane encapsulations, namely SR-MPLS [RFC8660] and >> SRv6 [RFC8754], can both encode an SF as a segment so that an SFC can >> be specified as a segment list. >> ... >> * SR-based SFC with integrated NSH service plane: in this scenario >> each service hop of the SFC is represented as a segment of the SR >> segment-list. >> ... >> Referring to Figure 1, packets of flow F in DC1 are classified into >> an NSH-based SFC and encapsulated after classification as <Inner >> Pkt><NSH: SPI 100, SI 255><Outer-transport> and forwarded to SFF1 >> (which is the first SFF hop for this service function chain). >> >> Perhaps: >> The two SR data plane encapsulations, namely SR-MPLS [RFC8660] and >> SRv6 [RFC8754], can encode an SF as a segment so that a service function >> chain can be specified as a segment list. >> ... >> SR-based SFC with integrated NSH service plane: >> In this scenario, each service hop of the service function chain is >> represented as a segment of the SR segment list. >> ... >> Referring to Figure 1, packets of flow F in DC1 are classified into >> an NSH-based service function chain, encapsulated after classification as >> <Inner Pkt><NSH: SPI 100, SI 255><Outer-transport>, and forwarded to SFF1 >> (which is the first SFF hop for this service function chain). >> --> >> >> >> 4) <!--[rfced] May we update this sentence for clarity? >> >> Original: >> A classifier MUST use an NSH Service Path Identifier (SPI) per SR >> policy so that different traffic flows that use the same NSH Service >> Function Path (SFP) but different SR policy can coexist on the same >> SFP without conflict during SFF processing. >> >> Perhaps: >> A classifier MUST use one NSH Service Path Identifier (SPI) for each >> SR policy so that different traffic flows can use the same NSH Service >> Function Path (SFP) and different SR policies can coexist on the same >> SFP without conflict during SFF processing. >> --> >> >> >> 5) <!-- [rfced] FYI, we removed the extraneous comma on line 7 of Figure 4. Please >> let us know if there are any objections. >> >> Original: >> |N(100,255) | ... |N(100,253) | , >> >> Current: >> |N(100,255) | ... |N(100,253) | >> --> >> >> >> 6) <!--[rfced] In Section 5.2, we have formatted text as sourcecode and >> set the type attribute to "pseudocode" to reflect what appears in >> Section 4.3.1.1 of RFC 8754. Please review to ensure correctness. >> --> >> >> >> 7) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether the following note should be in >> the <aside> element. It 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 End.NSH behavior interrupts the normal SRH packet >> processing as described in [RFC8754] section 4.3.1.1, which does not >> continue to S16 at this time. >> --> >> >> >> 8) <!--[rfced] Should Table 2 be updated to include the Hex and Change Controller >> columns to match what appears in the "SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors” registry (see >> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/segment-routing/segment-routing.xhtml>)? >> --> >> >> >> 9) <!-- [rfced] This text indicates the affiliations (and authors) provided >> valuable input and text contributions. Is this as intended? Or was it the >> authors only (not the affiliations) that contributed this way? >> >> Original: >> The following co-authors, along with their respective affiliations at >> the time of publication, provided valuable inputs and text contributions >> to this document. >> --> >> >> >> 10) <!-- [rfced] Terminology >> >> a) Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used >> inconsistently. We have updated to use "Prefix-SID" to reflect usage >> in previously published RFCs. Please let us know of any objections. >> >> prefix SID vs. Prefix SID vs. prefix-SID vs. Prefix-SID >> >> b) We note that "SF-SFF" and "SFF-SFF" are both used in this document. Are >> these abbreviations both used for the same term? Or are they two different >> terms? >> >> c) We note that Figure 5 contains "MPLS-SR", while the text defines >> "SR-MPLS". May update to "SR-MPLS" to reflect usage in previously published >> RFCs? >> --> >> >> >> 11) <!-- [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. >> >> Media Access Control (MAC) >> SR over IPv6 (SRv6) >> Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP) >> --> >> >> >> 12) <!-- [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. >> >> For example, please consider whether "master" should be updated. >> --> >> >> >> Thank you. >> >> RFC Editor/st/ap >> >> On Oct 3, 2023, at 4:38 PM, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote: >> >> *****IMPORTANT***** >> >> Updated 2023/10/03 >> >> 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/rfc9491.xml >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491.txt >> >> Diff file of the text: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491-diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> >> Diff of the XML: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491-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/rfc9491.original.v2v3.xml >> >> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates >> only: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491.form.xml >> >> >> Tracking progress >> ----------------- >> >> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9491 >> >> Please let us know if you have any questions. >> >> Thank you for your cooperation, >> >> RFC Editor >> >> -------------------------------------- >> RFC9491 (draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-15) >> >> Title : Integration of Network Service Header (NSH) and Segment Routing for Service Function Chaining (SFC) >> Author(s) : J. Guichard, Ed., J. Tantsura, Ed. >> WG Chair(s) : Bruno Decraene, Alvaro Retana, Joel M. Halpern >> >> Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston >> >> >
- [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9491 <draft-ietf-sprin… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9491 <draft-ietf-s… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9491 <draft-ietf-s… Sarah Tarrant
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9491 <draft-ietf-s… Sarah Tarrant
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9491 <draft-ietf-s… James Guichard
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9491 <draft-ietf-s… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9491 <draft-ietf-s… Sarah Tarrant
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9491 <draft-ietf-s… James Guichard
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9491 <draft-ietf-s… Sarah Tarrant
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9491 <draft-ietf-s… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9491 <draft-ietf-s… Sarah Tarrant
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9491 <draft-ietf-s… Sarah Tarrant
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9491 <draft-ietf-s… James Guichard
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9491 <draft-ietf-s… Sarah Tarrant