Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9302 <draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-14> for your review

[Luigi IANNONE <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Thank you very much for this review,
See comments inline.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, 13 September 2022 06:37
> To: Luigi IANNONE <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9302 <draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-14> for your
> review
> 
> Authors,
> 
> 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] RFC 6834 says the following:
> 
>    It is not meant to replace any
>    existing LISP mechanisms but rather to extend them by providing new
>    functionalities.
> 
> Should this text indicate that it updates the extensions or functionalities,
> rather than the mechanisms?

Can be simplified to:

It is not meant to replace any existing LISP mechanism, rather providing new functionalities.

Better?  

> 
> Original:
>    This document obsoletes RFC 6834 "Locator/ID Separation Protocol
>    (LISP) Map-Versioning", which is the initial experimental
>    specifications of the mechanisms updated by this document.
> 
> Original:
>    This document obsoletes [RFC6834], which is the initial experimental
>    specifications of the mechanisms updated by this document.
> -->
I guess the second is actually new text, which reads better.


> 
> 
> 3) <!-- [rfced]  In the following, to what does "it" and "both" refer?
> Is it "Map-Versioning" or "the information"?  Because there are two uses
> and the text refers to "both cases", we suggest using updating this text
> to clearly separate the uses (e.g., perhaps use <ol> or <ul>).
> 
> Original:
>    When Map-Versioning is used, LISP-encapsulated data packets contain
>    the version number of the two mappings used to select the RLOCs in
>    the outer header (i.e., both source and destination RLOCs).  This
>    information has two uses.  On the one hand, it enables the ETR
>    (Egress Tunnel Router) receiving the packet to know if the ITR
>    (Ingress Tunnel Router) is using the latest mapping version for the
>    destination EID.  If this is not the case, the ETR can directly send
>    a Map-Request containing the updated mapping to the ITR, to notify it
>    of the latest version.  The ETR can also solicit the ITR to trigger a
>    Map-Request to obtain the latest mapping by sending it a Solicit Map-
>    Request (SMR) message.  Both cases are defined in
>    [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].  On the other hand, it enables an ETR
>    receiving such a packet to know if it has in its EID-to-RLOC Map-
>    Cache the latest mapping for the source EID.  If this is not the
>    case, a Map-Request can be sent.
> -->

New suggested text:

    When Map-Versioning is used, LISP-encapsulated data packets contain
    the version number of the two mappings used to select the RLOCs in
    the outer header (i.e., both source and destination RLOCs).  This
    information has two uses:  

    1. Map-Versioning enables the ETR  (Egress Tunnel Router) receiving 
        the packet to know if the ITR (Ingress Tunnel Router) is using the latest 
        mapping version for the destination EID.  If this is not the case, the ETR 
        can directly send a Map-Request containing the updated mapping to 
        the ITR, to notify it of the latest version.  The ETR can also solicit the 
        ITR to trigger a Map-Request to obtain the latest mapping by sending 
        a Solicit Map- Request (SMR) message.  Both options are defined in
        [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].  

   2. Map-Versioning enables an ETR  receiving the packet to know if it 
       has in its EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache the latest mapping for the 
       source EID.  If this is not the case, a Map-Request can be sent.

Better?


> 
> 
> 4) <!--[rfced] May we update instances of "Dest Map-Version number" to
> "Destination Map-Version number" to reflect usage in RFC 6834? Note that
> this document has 2 instances of "Destination Map-Version number" and 14
> instances of "Dest Map-Version number".
> 
> Original:
>    Dest Map-Version number:  Map-Version of the mapping in the EID-to-
>      RLOC Map-Cache used by the ITR to select the RLOC present in the
>      "Destination Routing Locator" field of the outer IP header of LISP-
>      encapsulated packets (Section 7.1).
> -->
> 

Actually should be the other way around, changing the two instances of "Destination Map-Version Number: to "Dest Map-Version Number". The use of "Dest Map-Version Number" has been chosen to be inline with the figure 1 throughout the document. 


> 
> 5) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, may we update this text as follows?
> 
> Original:
>    The ordering enables reacting differently to
>    "older" and "newer" Map-Version number, discarding the packet in the
>    former case and triggering a Map-Request in the latter (see Section 7
>    for further details).
> 
> Perhaps:
>    The ordering enables different reactions to
>    "older" and "newer" Map-Version numbers, whereby "older" numbers are
>    discarded and "newer" numbers trigger Map-Requests (see Section 7
>    for further details).
> -->

Yes. It reads better.

> 
> 
> 6) <!-- [rfced] Do you want to use superscript (<sup>) here?
> 
> Original:
>         V2 > V1 AND (V2 - V1) <= 2**(12-1)
> 
>          OR
> 
>          V1 > V2 AND (V1 - V2) > 2**(12-1)
> 
> <sup> would display as follows in the text:
>          V2 > V1 AND (V2 - V1) <= 2^(12-1)
> 
>          OR
> 
>          V1 > V2 AND (V1 - V2) > 2^(12-1)
> 
> (12-1) would display as superscript in HTML and PDF.
> -->

Yes, good idea.

> 
> 
> 7) <!-- [rfced] Is it the LISP site that assigns a new Map-Version number?
> 
> Original:
>    The main idea of using Map-Version numbers is that whenever there is
>    a change in the mapping (e.g., adding/removing RLOCs, a change in the
>    weights due to Traffic Engineering policies, or a change in the
>    priorities) or a LISP site realizes that one or more of its own RLOCs
>    are not reachable anymore from a local perspective (e.g., through
>    IGP, or policy changes) the LISP site updates the mapping, also
>    assigning a new Map-Version number.
> 
> Perhaps:
>    The main idea of using Map-Version numbers is that whenever there is
>    a change in the mapping (e.g., adding/removing RLOCs, a change in the
>    weights due to Traffic Engineering policies, or a change in the
>    priorities) or a LISP site realizes that one or more of its own RLOCs
>    are no longer reachable from a local perspective (e.g., through IGP
>    or policy changes), the LISP site updates the mapping and also assigns
>    a new Map-Version number.
> -->

The suggested text is OK.

> 
> 
> 8) <!-- [rfced] Is mapping intended to be singular or plural here?
> 
> Original:
>    To this end simple measures can be
>    taken, like updating a mapping only when all active traffic is using
>    the latest version, or waiting sufficient time to be sure that
>    mapping in LISP caches expire, which means waiting at least as much
>    as the mapping Time-To-Live (as defined in
>    [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]).
> 
> Perhaps:
>    To this end, simple measures can be taken, like
>    updating a mapping only when all active traffic is using the latest
>    version, or waiting a sufficient amount of time to be sure that the
>    mapping in LISP caches expires, which means waiting at least as long
>    as the mapping Time To Live (TTL) (as defined in [RFC9301]).
> -->

Singular is correct.

> 
> 
> 9) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble parsing this sentence.  Should the
> second instance of "ignoring the Source Map-Version number" be deleted?
> 
> Original:
>    The ETR checks only the Dest Map-Version number, ignoring the Source
>    Map-Version number as specified in the final sentence of Section 7.2,
>    ignoring the Source Map-Version number.
> -->

Yes, delete the second instance.

> 
> 
> 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.
> -->

Nothing to change IMO.

Thanks

Ciao

L.



> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> RFC Editor
> 
> 
> On Sep 12, 2022, at 9:33 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> *****IMPORTANT*****
> 
> Updated 2022/09/12
> 
> 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/rfc9302.xml
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.pdf
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.txt
> 
> Diff file of the text:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302-diff.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
> 
> Diff of the XML:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302-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/rfc9302.original.v2v3.xml
> 
> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
> only:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.form.xml
> 
> 
> Tracking progress
> -----------------
> 
> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9302
> 
> Please let us know if you have any questions.
> 
> Thank you for your cooperation,
> 
> RFC Editor
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC9302 (draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-14)
> 
> Title            : Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning
> Author(s)        : L. Iannone, D. Saucez, O. Bonaventure
> WG Chair(s)      : Joel M. Halpern, Luigi Iannone
> Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
> 
>