Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9502 <draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo-16> for your review

[Peter Psenak <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

please see inline (##PP):

On 26/10/2023 01:05, [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] For clarity, should the D-flag point to the "up/down bit"
> as was done in RFC 9352?  In addition, should Reserved be defined?
> 
> Original:
>                      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
>                     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>                     |D|  Reserved   |
>                     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> 
>           D-flag: When the Prefix is leaked from level-2 to level-1, the
>           D bit MUST be set.  Otherwise, this bit MUST be clear.
>           Prefixes with the D bit set MUST NOT be leaked from level-1 to
>           level-2.  This is to prevent looping.
> 
>>From RFC 9352: 
>     D-flag: "up/down bit" as described in Section 4.1 of [RFC5305].

##PP
please update as proposed.

> -->
> 
> 
> 2) <!-- [rfced] To match the rest of the list, should a definition for
> "Optional sub-TLVs (variable length)" be included?

##PP
yes, please add it.

> 
> Current:
>     Algorithm (1 octet):  Associated Algorithm from 128 to 255.
> 
>     Prefix Len (1 octet):  Prefix length measured in bits.
> 
>     Prefix (variable length):  Prefix mapped to Flex-Algorithm.
> 
>     Optional Sub-TLV-length (1 octet):  Number of octets used by sub-TLVs
> 
>     Optional sub-TLVs (variable length)
> -->
> 
> 
> 3) <!-- [rfced] Please note that we moved the ruler over one space, so the
> numbers appear over the hyphens.  Please let us know if any corrections are
> needed.
> 
> Updated Figure 5:
>       0                   1                   2                   3
>       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      |              Type             |             Length            |
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      |       MT-ID   |  Algorithm    |     Flags     |     Reserved  |
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      |                          Metric                               |
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> 
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> 
> Updated Figure 6:
>       0                   1                   2                   3
>       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      |              Type             |             Length            |
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      |                     Forwarding Address                        |
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> -->

##PP
Ack.

> 
> 
> 4) <!-- [rfced] Please clarify how "and the ASBR is reachable in" relates to
> the rest of the sentence. Would the following text provide clarity while
> retaining the original meaning?

##PP
each ASBR may be reachable in no/some/all flex-algorithms that ABR 
participates in. ABR only advertises ASBR (including IPFAAM Sub-TLVs) in 
the particular flex-algorithm if (a) ABR participates in it AND (b) ASBR 
is reachable in it.

> 
> Original:
>     An OSPF ABR MUST include the OSPF IPFAAM Sub-TLVs as part of the ASBR
>     reachability advertisement between areas for every IP Flex-Algorithm
>     in which it participates and the ASBR is reachable in. >
> Perhaps:
>     An OSPF ABR MUST include the OSPF IPFAAM Sub-TLVs as part of the ASBR
>     reachability advertisement between the areas for every IP
>     Flex-Algorithm it participates in and the ASBR it is reachable in.

##PP
I'm fine with the change.

> -->
> 
> 
> 5) <!-- [rfced] Note that we lowercased n and y to match what appears in the
> IANA registry.  Please let us know any objections.

##PP
no objection.

> 
> Current in Table 3:
> 
>   IIH | LSP | SNP | Purge
> +=====+=====+=====+=======+
> | n   | y   | n   | n     |
> ...
> | n   | y   | n   | n     |
> -->
> 
> 
> 6) <!-- [rfced] We have updated the Description to match what appears in the
> IANA registry (see https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml#isis-tlv-codepoints-advertising-prefix-reachability).
> Please let us know if any corrections are needed.

##PP
Ack.
> 
> Original:
>     Flex-Algorithm Prefix Metric
> 
> Current:
>     Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric (FAPM)
> -->
> 
> 
> 7) <!-- [rfced] It appears as though there are more recent versions of this
> document available.  Is the reference to Release 16.4.0 correct or should the
> reference be updated to point to a more recent version?

##PP
please use the latest version.

> See https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=3144.
> 
> Current:
>     [TS.23.501-3GPP]
>                3GPP, "System Architecture for 5G System", Release 16.4.0,
>                3GPP TS 23.501, March 2020.
> -->
> 
> 
> 8) <!-- [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.
> 
>     Flex-Algorithm
>     Flex Algorithm
>     flex-algo
>     Flexible Algorithm

looking at rfc9350, it uses:

1) Flex-Algorithm -  when referring to a numeric identifier in the range 
128-255

1) "Flexible Algorithm"  - everywhere else

Please see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9350.html#section-3

> 
> 
> b) Should "IP flex-algo prefixes" be "IP Flex-Algorithm Prefixes"? Please let
> us know if any updates are needed.

##PP
please replace with "IP Algorithm Prefixes"

> 
> 
> c) Please confirm that "bit E" is desired, as opposed to "E bit" (similar to
> "D bit" and "S bit").
> 
>     bit E -> E bit

##
please use "* bit" consistently for all bits

> 
> 
> d) It is unclear if "sub-TLV" (uncapitalized) is used for the generic noun
> and "Sub-TLV" (capitalized) is used for the proper noun? 

##PP
indeed, that is the intention.
Please feel free to fix any that do  not match that.



> Please review and
> let us know if any updates are needed.
> 
> Examples:
> the sub-TLV space
> this Sub-TLV
> IP Algorithm Sub-TLV is a sub-TLV
> Prefix Reachability Sub-TLV is a sub-TLV
> IPFAAM Sub-TLV is a Sub-TLV
> -->
> 
> 
> 9) <!-- [rfced] Acronyms and their expansions: 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.
> -->

##PP
looks correct.

thanks,
Peter


> 
> 
> 10) <!-- [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.
> -->
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> RFC Editor
> 
> 
> On Oct 25, 2023, at 3:55 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> *****IMPORTANT*****
> 
> Updated 2023/10/25
> 
> 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/rfc9502.xml
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502.html
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502.pdf
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502.txt
> 
> Diff file of the text:
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502-diff.html
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
> 
> Diff of the XML:
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502-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/rfc9502.original.v2v3.xml
> 
> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
> only:
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502.form.xml
> 
> 
> Tracking progress
> -----------------
> 
> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9502
> 
> Please let us know if you have any questions.
> 
> Thank you for your cooperation,
> 
> RFC Editor
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC9502 (draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo-16)
> 
> Title            : IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks
> Author(s)        : W. Britto, S. Hegde, P. Kaneriya, R. Shetty, R. Bonica, P. Psenak
> WG Chair(s)      : Acee Lindem, Christian Hopps
> Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
> 
> 
>