Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9352 <draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-19> for your review

[[e-mail]]

Authors,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.

1) <!--[rfced] The title of the document has been updated as follows
(note that we updated "Dataplane" to "Data Plane" for consistency
and to match use in RFC 9350).  Please review.

Original:
   IS-IS Extensions to Support Segment Routing over IPv6 Dataplane

Current:
   IS-IS Extensions to Support Segment Routing over the IPv6 Data Plane
-->


2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->


3) <!--[rfced] We notice "router capabilities TLV" vs. "Router
Capabilities TLV", so we updated as "Router Capability TLV" to
match use in RFC 9350. However, we also note that RFC 7981 only
uses "IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV". Should the instances of
"Router Capability TLV" perhaps be updated to reflect use in
RFC 7981, or is the current text below okay as is?

Current:
   A node indicates that it supports the SR Segment Endpoint 
   Node functionality as specified in [RFC8754] by advertising 
   a new SRv6 Capabilities sub-TLV of the Router Capability 
   TLV [RFC7981].

Current:
   [RFC8491] defines the means to advertise node-/link-specific 
   values for MSDs of various types. Node MSDs are advertised in
   a sub-TLV of the Router Capability TLV [RFC7981].
-->


4) <!--[rfced] FYI: For the second figure in Section 2, the alignment of
the bit ruler has been corrected.
-->


5) <!--[rfced] Since "algorithm(s)" is read as singular, we updated the
text as follows. Please let us know of any concerns.

Original: 
   An SRv6 capable router indicates supported algorithm(s)
   by advertising the Segment Routing Algorithm sub-TLV as 
   defined in [RFC8667].

Current:
   An SRv6-capable router indicates one or more supported 
   algorithms by advertising the Segment Routing Algorithm 
   sub-TLV, as defined in [RFC8667].
-->


6) <!--[rfced] We note that "D-flag" is not described in RFC 5305. Is an
updated needed, or does "D-flag" perhaps refer to the "up/down
bit" in RFC 5305?

Original:
   D-flag: Same as described in section 4.1. of [RFC5305].
-->


7) <!--[rfced] Since Table 1 (Section 10) is the only table without a
title, would you like to add one - perhaps "Endpoint Behaviors"
or other?
-->


8) <!--[rfced] We have included some specific questions about the IANA
text below. In addition to responding to those questions, please
review all of the IANA-related updates carefully and let us know
if any further updates are needed.

1) FYI: IANA has indicated that the authors approved removing "TLV"
from the names/descriptions.  Given this, we have removed "TLV" below
(which now matches the "IS-IS Top-Level TLV Codepoints" registry at
https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/).

Original:
   Type | Description      | IIH | LSP | SNP | Purge
   27   | SRv6 Locator TLV | n   | y   |n    | n 

Current:
   Value | Name            | IIH | LSP | SNP | Purge
   27    | SRv6 Locator    | n   | y   |n    | n 

2) Section 11.1.2. In Table 4, should the "Description" column be added
for clarity? Also, should only column 27 be included since that is the
only new information being added (i.e., should columns 135, 235, 236,
and 237 be deleted)?
-->


9) <!-- [rfced] 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. 

- SRv6 Capability sub-TLV vs. SRv6 Capabilities sub-TLV
    Note: 
    Are these terms different? We notice that Section 11.3 
    refers to "the SRv6 Capability sub-TLV specified in this 
    document (Section 2)", and Section 11.8 refers to
    "the IS-IS SRv6 Capabilities sub-TLV specified in this 
    document (Section 2)". However, Section 2 refers to the 
    "SRv6 Capabilities sub-TLV". Please let us know how we 
    may update this for consistency.

- sub-TLV vs. Sub-TLV 
- sub-sub-TLV vs. Sub-sub-TLV vs. Sub-Sub-TLV
    Note: To match RFCs 9350 and 9351, we will make "sub-TLV" and
    "sub-sub-TLV" lowercase in the text, and they will be capitalized 
    in section titles and registry names.  Please let us know of any 
    concerns before we proceed with the updates as appropriate.
-->


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.

For example, please consider whether "black-holed" should be updated.
-->


Thank you.

RFC Editor/ap/kc


On Jan 26, 2023, at 1:32 PM, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2023/01/26

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/rfc9352.xml
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9352.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9352.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9352.txt

Diff file of the text:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9352-diff.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9352-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9352-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/rfc9352.original.v2v3.xml 

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
only: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9352.form.xml


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9352

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9352 (draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-19)

Title            : IS-IS Extensions to Support Segment Routing over IPv6 Dataplane
Author(s)        : P. Psenak, Ed., C. Filsfils, A. Bashandy, B. Decraene, Z. Hu
WG Chair(s)      : Acee Lindem, Christian Hopps
Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston