Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920bis-06> for your review
rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Tue, 19 September 2023 00:51 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.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 BD48AC1524C8; Mon, 18 Sep 2023 17:51:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.534
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.534 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CTE_8BIT_MISMATCH=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL=0.732, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no 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 RECkAsKpsSO3; Mon, 18 Sep 2023 17:51:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (unknown [50.223.129.200]) (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 20C40C151072; Mon, 18 Sep 2023 17:51:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id DB8FAD844F; Mon, 18 Sep 2023 17:51:46 -0700 (PDT)
To: ppsenak@cisco.com, ginsberg@cisco.com, wim.henderickx@nokia.com, jefftant.ietf@gmail.com, jdrake@juniper.net
From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, lsr-ads@ietf.org, lsr-chairs@ietf.org, chopps@chopps.org, jgs@juniper.net, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20230919005146.DB8FAD844F@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2023 17:51:46 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/EWbjX3yqOtwpXVMKjTs4VxaVQUw>
Subject: Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920bis-06> 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: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 00:51:50 -0000
Authors, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file. 1) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We note that this XML file was submitted in "prepped" format. We have "unprepped" the file to make editing the document easier. Note that this does not impact the document text but does cause many changes to the XML code. --> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> 3) <!-- [rfced] FYI- We have rephrased the following sentence to introduce the abbreviations for "Segment Routing" (SR) and "Loop-Free Alternates" (LFAs) upon first use. Please let us know any objections. Original: Since the original RSVP-TE use case was defined, additional applications (e.g., Segment Routing Policy and Loop-Free Alternates) that also make use of the link attribute advertisements have been defined. Current: Since the original RSVP-TE use case was defined, additional applications such as Segment Routing (SR) Policy and Loop-Free Alternates (LFAs) that also make use of the link attribute advertisements have been defined. --> 4) <!-- [rfced] We suggest updating "SLRG group" to "SLRG" to avoid redundancy (if expanded, “SLRG group” would read “Shared Risk Link Group group”). Please review and let us know if any updates are needed. Original: The SRLG of a link can be used in OSPF-calculated IPFRR (IP Fast Reroute) [RFC5714] to compute a backup path that does not share any SRLG group with the protected link. Perhaps: The SRLG of a link can be used in OSPF-calculated IPFRR (IP Fast Reroute) [RFC5714] to compute a backup path that does not share any SRLG with the protected link. --> 5) <!-- [rfced] Please review the following text. This sentence mentions Section 4.2, but Section 4.2 does not exist in this document. Was "Section 4.1" the intended text here? Original: Link attribute advertisements associated with zero-length Application Identifier Bit Masks for both standard applications and user-defined applications are usable by any application, subject to the restrictions specified in Section 4.2. Perhaps: Link attribute advertisements associated with zero-length Application Identifier Bit Masks for both standard applications and user-defined applications are usable by any application, subject to the restrictions specified in Section 4.1. --> 6) <!-- [rfced] Is it intentional for RFC 9256 to be the only RFC that uses <displayreference> for citation tags? Please let us know if any updates are needed for consistency. [RFC9256] -> [SEGMENT-ROUTING] --> 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) --> 8) <!-- [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/mc/kc On Sep 18, 2023, at 5:50 PM, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2023/09/18 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/rfc9492.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9492.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9492.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9492.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9492-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9492-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9492-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9492 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC9492 (draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920bis-06) Title : OSPF Application-Specific Link Attributes Author(s) : P. Psenak, Ed., L. Ginsberg, W. Henderickx, J. Tantsura, J. Drake WG Chair(s) : Acee Lindem, Christian Hopps Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
- [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-lsr-r… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-l… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-l… Madison Church
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-l… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-l… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-l… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-l… Madison Church
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-l… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-l… Madison Church
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-l… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-l… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-l… Wim Henderickx (Nokia)
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-l… Acee Lindem
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-l… John E Drake
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-l… Madison Church
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-l… Acee Lindem
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-l… Acee Lindem
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-l… Peter Psenak
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-l… Madison Church
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-l… Rebecca VanRheenen