Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9552 <draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-17> for your review

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

Also, some additional comments/questions on the diff itself.

1) Sec 2.1 replaces "the IGP" with "IGP" - "the IGP" refers to either OSPF
or ISIS. Just wondering if "the" is not really needed here? There are a few
other similar usages in the rest of the document as well (5.2.2, 5.3.1.4,
5.3.2.1, 5.6).

2) Sec 4 there is a change from "max-aged" to "at the max age" - this
change is inappropriate. We can perhaps replace "max-aged" with "aged out".

Thanks,
Ketan


On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 6:50 PM Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Thanks for your help with this document. Please check inline below for
> responses.
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 7:45 AM <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Ketan,
>>
>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as
>> necessary)
>> the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>>
>> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
>> the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
>>
>>
>> 2) <!--[rfced] In the sentence below, does "that requires CPU-intensive
>> or coordinated computations" refer to "Path Computation Element (CPE)"?
>>
>> Original:
>>    The IETF has defined the Path Computation Element (PCE) [RFC4655] as
>>    a mechanism for achieving the computation of end-to-end TE paths that
>>    cross the visibility of more than one TED or that requires CPU-
>>    intensive or coordinated computations.
>>
>> Perhaps:
>>    The IETF has defined the Path Computation Element (PCE) [RFC4655] as
>>    a mechanism for achieving the computation of end-to-end TE paths that
>>    cross the visibility of more than one TED. The PCE also requires CPU-
>>    intensive or coordinated computations.
>> -->
>>
>
> KT> The original text is more appropriate. The "cross the visibility of
> more than one TED"  and "requires CPU-intensive or coordinated
> computations" are the two OR clauses referring to "the computation of
> end-to-end TE paths".
>
>
>>
>>
>> 3) <!--[rfced] We do not see any mentions of "loose-hop-expansion" in
>> RFC 3209. We note that the document includes instances of "loose hop",
>> but there are no occurrences of "expansion". Please review and let us
>> know if the citation requires any updates.
>>
>> Original:
>>    Per-domain path
>>    computation uses a technique called "loose-hop-expansion" [RFC3209]
>>    and selects the exit ABR and other ABRs or AS Border Routers (ASBRs)
>>    using the IGP-computed shortest path topology for the remainder of
>>    the path.
>> -->
>>
>
> KT> How about the following:
> Per-domain path
> computation selects the exit ABR and other ABRs or AS Border Routers
> (ASBRs)
> as loose-hops [RFC3209] and using the IGP-computed shortest path topology
> for the
> remainder of the path.
>
>
>>
>>
>> 4) <!--[rfced] May we update the commas in this list as follows?
>>
>> Original:
>>    (2) a BGP
>>    path attribute (BGP-LS Attribute) that carries properties of the
>>    link, node, or prefix objects such as the link and prefix metric or
>>    auxiliary Router-IDs of nodes, etc.
>>
>> Perhaps:
>>    (2) a BGP
>>    path attribute (BGP-LS Attribute) that carries properties of the
>>    link, node, or prefix objects such as the link and prefix metric,
>>    auxiliary Router-IDs of nodes, etc.
>> -->
>>
>
> KT> Yes
>
>
>>
>>
>> 5) <!-- [rfced] Tables 3 and 18 have entries for the following:
>>
>>    513         | BGP-LS Identifier (deprecated)
>>
>> Should the entry be marked as deprecated in the IANA registry <
>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml#node-descriptor-link-descriptor-prefix-descriptor-attribute-tlv>?
>>
>> -->
>>
>
> KT> Yes
>
>
>>
>>
>> 6) <!--[rfced] The sentences below read awkwardly with "direct or static".
>> Please review and let us know if/how they may be updated.
>>
>> Original:
>>    This is a mandatory TLV when
>>    originating information from IS-IS, OSPF, direct or static.
>>    ...
>>    When the node is running an IGP protocol,
>>    an implementation MAY choose to use the IGP Router-ID for direct
>>    or static.
>>
>> Perhaps:
>>    This is a mandatory TLV when
>>    originating information from IS-IS, OSPF, 'Direct', or 'Static
>>    configuration'.
>>    ...
>>    When the node is running an IGP protocol,
>>    an implementation MAY choose to use the IGP Router-ID for 'Direct'
>>    or 'Static configuration'.
>> -->
>>
>
> KT> Looks better indeed.
>
>
>>
>>
>> 7) <!-- [rfced] There is a slight difference between the sections
>> referenced in Tables 5 and 18.  The reference in the IANA registry
>> matches
>> what appears in Table 18.  Should the section references be updated for
>> consistency?  Perhaps they should match what appears Table 5?
>>
>> Table 5 (Section 5.2.3):
>>    |      264       | OSPF Route Type           |    1     | Section   |
>>    |                |                           |          | 5.2.3.1   |
>>    |      265       | IP Reachability           | variable | Section   |
>>    |                | Information               |          | 5.2.3.2   |
>>
>>
>> Table 18 (Section 9):
>>      |      264       | OSPF Route Type         | Section 5.2.3     |
>>      |      265       | IP Reachability         | Section 5.2.3     |
>>      |                | Information             |                   |
>> -->
>>
>
> KT> Good catch. Table 5 is indeed correct and the others have wrong
> section references for these TLVs.
>
>
>>
>>
>> 8) <!--[rfced] We note that Figure 13 includes a field called "Route
>> Type". Should "OSPF" be removed from this text that precedes Figure 13?
>>
>> Original:
>>    The OSPF Route Type field follows the route types defined in the OSPF
>>    protocol and can be one of the following:
>>
>> Perhaps:
>>    The Route Type field follows the route types defined in the OSPF
>>    protocol and can be one of the following:
>> -->
>>
>
> KT> We could not fit "OSPF Route Type" in that figure with the 8-bit width
> and hence it was abbreviated to "Route Type". We can use "Route Type" in
> the text as well to be consistent.
>
>
>>
>>
>> 9) <!-- [rfced] The following appears in Table 7:
>>
>>    | 'T' | Attached Bit | [ISO10589] |
>>
>> The following appears in Table 14:
>>
>>    |  1  | Attached Bit (A-bit) |  RFC 9552 |
>>
>> Should Table 7 be updated to reflect 'A' in the Bit column?
>> -->
>>
>
> KT> Yes
>
>
>>
>>
>> 10) <!--[rfced] To parallel the fields of other figures, should "Opaque
>> node attributes" and "Opaque link attributes" be capitalized in
>> Figures 18 and 23, respectively?
>>
>> Original:
>>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>      //               Opaque node attributes (variable)             //
>>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>
>>                   Figure 18: Opaque Node Attribute Format
>>
>>
>>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>      //                Opaque link attributes (variable)            //
>>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>
>>                 Figure 23: Opaque Link Attribute TLV Format
>> -->
>>
>
> KT> Yes
>
>
>>
>>
>> 11) <!--[rfced] Should the parentheses around "SRLG" proceeding "IPv4"
>> be removed to parallel "SRLG" proceeding "IPv6"?
>>
>> Original:
>>    In IS-IS, the SRLG
>>    information is carried in two different TLVs: the IPv4 (SRLG) TLV
>>    (Type 138) defined in [RFC5307] and the IPv6 SRLG TLV (Type 139)
>>    defined in [RFC6119].
>>
>> Perhaps:
>>    In IS-IS, the SRLG
>>    information is carried in two different TLVs: the IPv4 SRLG TLV
>>    (Type 138) defined in [RFC5307] and the IPv6 SRLG TLV (Type 139)
>>    defined in [RFC6119].
>> -->
>>
>
> KT> Actually these are the GMPLS-SRLG TLV (for IPv4) (Type 138) defined in
> [RFC5307] and the IPv6 SRLG TLV (Type 139) defined in [RFC6119].
>
>
>>
>>
>> 12) <!--[rfced] We note that the "local address" bit listed in RFC 5340
>> lists the bit value as "LA-bit". Should "L" (Table 11) be updated to
>> "LA-bit"?
>> -->
>>
>
> KT> Not needed. We can keep as is since they are separate protocols
> (BGP-LS and OSPF) and this is a bis RFC.
>
>
>>
>>
>> 13) <!--[rfced] May we update instances of "Extened IGP Route Tag" to be
>> "IGP Extened Route Tag" to reflect the defined code point in IANA's
>> "BGP-LS NLRI and Attribute TLVs" registry? If yes, these updates will
>> be made in Section 5.3.3.3.
>> -->
>
>
> KT> Yes.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 14) <!--[rfced] May we update the sentence below to improve readability?
>>
>> Original:
>>    An originating router shall use this TLV for encoding information
>>    specific to the protocol advertised in the NLRI header Protocol-ID
>>    field or new protocol extensions to the protocol as advertised in the
>>    NLRI header Protocol-ID field for which there is no protocol-neutral
>>    representation in the BGP Link-State NLRI.
>>
>> Perhaps:
>>    An originating router shall use this TLV for encoding information
>>    specific to the protocol advertised in the NLRI header Protocol-ID
>>    field or it shall use new protocol extensions for the protocol as
>>    advertised in the NLRI header Protocol-ID field for which there is no
>>    protocol-neutral representation in the BGP Link-State NLRI.
>> -->
>>
>
> KT> Yes
>
>
>>
>>
>> 15) <!--[rfced] FYI, we've updated "E-AS-External-Prefix-LSA" to
>> "E-AS-External-LSA" to match what appears in Section 4.5 of RFC 8362.
>> Please let us know of any concerns.
>>
>> Original:
>>    In the case of OSPFv3, this
>>    TLV MUST NOT be used to advertise TLVs other than those in the OSPFv3
>>    E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA, E-Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA, E-AS-External-
>>    Prefix-LSA, and E-NSSA-LSA [RFC8362].
>>
>> Current:
>>    In the case of OSPFv3, this
>>    TLV MUST NOT be used to advertise TLVs other than those in the OSPFv3
>>    E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA, E-Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA, E-AS-External-LSA,
>>    and E-NSSA-LSA [RFC8362].
>> -->
>>
>
> KT> Yes
>
>
>>
>>
>> 16) <!--[rfced] May we update this sentence as follows for clarity?
>>
>> Original:
>>    Consider a point-to-point link between two routers, A and B, that
>>    initially were OSPFv2-only routers and then IS-IS is enabled on them.
>>
>> Perhaps:
>>    Consider a point-to-point link between two routers, A and B, which
>>    initially were OSPFv2-only routers and then had IS-IS enabled on them.
>> -->
>>
>
> KT> Yes
>
>
>>
>>
>> 17) <!-- [rfced] Terminology
>>
>> a) Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used
>> inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how
>> they
>> may be made consistent.
>>
>> Broadcast LAN / broadcast LAN
>> Multi-Topology ID / Multi-Topology Identifier
>> Node Name / node name
>> Route Reflector / route reflector
>>
>
> KT> The 2nd one (on the right) for all of the above
>
>
>>
>> b) To parallel RFC 7752, may we update the following terms to the ones
>> listed on the left.
>>
>> link-local IPv6 address / IPv6 link-local address
>> path attribute length / Path Attribute Length
>>
>
> KT> The 2nd ones (on the right) are more appropriate
>
>
>>
>> c) FYI, we made the following terms capitalized for consistency to
>> parallel
>> other BGP terminology. Please review and let us know if further updates
>> are necessary.
>>
>> BGP Attribute
>> BGP Decision Process
>> BGP Next-Hop
>>  -> does this always refer to the attribute?
>>
>
> KT> Only in sec 5.5 where it correct to capitalize it.
>
>
>> BGP Speaker
>>
>> BGP-LS Attribute
>> BGP-LS Speaker
>> -->
>>
>
> KT> Yes
>
>
>>
>>
>> 18) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for the following
>> abbreviations per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please
>> review each expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness.
>>
>> Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA)
>> Provider Edge (PE)
>> RSVP - Fast Reroute (RSVP-FRR)
>> -->
>>
>
> KT> Yes
>
>
>>
>>
>> 19) <!-- [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> Ack
>
> Thanks,
> Ketan
>
>
>>
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> RFC Editor
>>
>> On Dec 15, 2023, at 6:10 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>
>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>
>> Updated 2023/12/15
>>
>> 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/rfc9552.xml
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552.html
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552.pdf
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552.txt
>>
>> Diff file of the text:
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552-diff.html
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>>
>> Diff of the XML:
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552-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/rfc9552.original.v2v3.xml
>>
>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
>> only:
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552.form.xml
>>
>>
>> Tracking progress
>> -----------------
>>
>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9552
>>
>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>>
>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>>
>> RFC Editor
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> RFC9552 (draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-17)
>>
>> Title            : Distribution of Link-State and Traffic Engineering
>> Information Using BGP
>> Author(s)        : K. Talaulikar, Ed.
>> WG Chair(s)      : Susan Hares, Keyur Patel, Jeffrey Haas
>>
>> Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
>>
>>
>>