Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 <draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-12> for your review
rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Tue, 12 July 2022 22:37 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 76F21C14F74C; Tue, 12 Jul 2022 15:37:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.661
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.661 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CTE_8BIT_MISMATCH=0.998, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 HX9mrETsQD14; Tue, 12 Jul 2022 15:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (rfc-editor.org [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 580BEC14F742; Tue, 12 Jul 2022 15:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id 331A84C0A2; Tue, 12 Jul 2022 15:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
To: hejia@huawei.com, italo.busi@huawei.com, ryoo@etri.re.kr, byyun@etri.re.kr, peter.park@kt.com
From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, teas-ads@ietf.org, teas-chairs@ietf.org, vbeeram@juniper.net, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20220712223705.331A84C0A2@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2022 15:37:05 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/FEMMbX8ZUgZbZFcHbXDN2TuDyds>
Subject: Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 <draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-12> 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, 12 Jul 2022 22:37:09 -0000
Authors, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file. 1) <!-- [rfced] Abbreviated (running) title (.pdf output) and body of document: Because this document and RFC 4872 state that they define extensions (i.e., more than one extension) for GMPLS signaling, we changed "extension" to "extensions" as noted below. Please review, and let us know any concerns. Original: GMPLS Extension for SMP ... 4. Operation of SMP with GMPLS Signaling Extension . . . . . . . 5 5. GMPLS Signaling Extension for SMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ... RFC 4872 [RFC4872] defines extension of Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support Shared Mesh Restoration (SMR) mechanisms. Currently: GMPLS Extensions for SMP ... 4. Operation of SMP with GMPLS Signaling Extensions 5. GMPLS Signaling Extensions for SMP ... RFC 4872 [RFC4872] defines extensions for Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support Shared Mesh Restoration (SMR) mechanisms. --> 2) <!-- [rfced] Section 4: We could not verify the "MUST" as related to RFC 3209. Please verify that this text is correct and will be clear to readers. Original: Per RFC 3209 [RFC3209], in order to achieve resource sharing during the signaling of these protecting LSPs, they MUST have the same Tunnel Endpoint Address (as part of their SESSION object). --> 3) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.2: Please review whether this "Note:" item should be in the <aside> element. <aside> is defined as "a container for content that is semantically less important or tangential to the content that surrounds it" (https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/xml2rfc-doc.html#name-aside-2). Original: Note: N bit is set to indicate that the protection switching signaling is done via data plane. --> 4) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.3: We see that RFC 3473 uses "Admin_Status" instead of "ADMIN_STATUS", while RFCs 4872 and 4873 use "ADMIN_STATUS". However, RFC 4873 also uses "Admin_Status". Will these distinctions be clear to readers? Original: The formerly working LSP MAY be signaled with the A bit set in the ADMIN_STATUS object (see [RFC3473]). --> 5) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.4: Does "preempted situation" mean "preemption status" or something else? If the suggested text is not correct, please clarify. Original: Once the working LSP and the protecting LSP are configured or pre-configured, the end node MUST keep refreshing both working and protecting LSPs regardless of failure or preempted situation. Suggested: Once the working LSP and the protecting LSP are configured or preconfigured, the end node MUST keep refreshing both working and protecting LSPs, regardless of failure or preemption status. --> 6) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.6: Do these four instances of "SMP protecting LSP" mean "SMP's protecting LSP", "protecting LSP for SMP", or something else? Original: SMP relies on APS protocol messages being exchanged between the nodes along the path to activate an SMP protecting LSP. In order to allow the exchange of APS protocol messages, an APS channel has to be configured between adjacent nodes along the path of the SMP protecting LSP. This is done by other means than GMPLS signaling, before any SMP protecting LSP has been set up. Therefore, there are likely additional requirements for APS configuration which are outside the scope of this document. Depending on the APS protocol message format, the APS protocol may use different identifiers than GMPLS signaling to identify the SMP protecting LSP. --> 7) <!-- [rfced] Section 6.2: We had trouble determining what is "only applicable" in this sentence, because of the comma after "1". If neither suggestion below is correct, please clarify. Original: The O bit is only applicable when the P bit is set to 1, and the LSP Protection Type Flag is set to 0x04 (1:N Protection with Extra-Traffic), 0x08 (1+1 Unidirectional Protection), 0x10 (1+1 Bidirectional Protection), or 0x20 (Shared Mesh Protection). Suggestion #1 (only applicable when (1) and (2) are applied): The O bit is only applicable when (1) the P bit is set to 1 and (2) the LSP Protection Type Flag is set to 0x04 (1:N Protection with Extra-Traffic), 0x08 (1+1 Unidirectional Protection), 0x10 (1+1 Bidirectional Protection), or 0x20 (Shared Mesh Protection). Suggestion #2 (only applicable when the P bit is set to 1): The O bit is only applicable when the P bit is set to 1. Also, the LSP Protection Type Flag is set to 0x04 (1:N Protection with Extra-Traffic), 0x08 (1+1 Unidirectional Protection), 0x10 (1+1 Bidirectional Protection), or 0x20 (Shared Mesh Protection). --> 8) <!-- [rfced] Section 6.3: This paragraph was difficult to follow; for example, "several fields from that field" reads oddly. Also, the fourth sentence appeared to conflict with Section 1, Paragraph 1, last sentence of this document, as well as Section 9.2 of RFC 4873. We updated the text as follows. Please review carefully, and let us know if anything is incorrect. Original: [RFC4872] reserved a 32-bit field in the PROTECTION object header. Subsequently, [RFC4873] allocated several fields from that field, and left the remainder of the bits reserved. This specification further allocates the preemption priority field from those formerly-reserved bits. The 32-bit field in the PROTECTION object defined in [RFC4873] are updated as follows: Currently (the subject-verb disagreement in the fourth sentence has been corrected): [RFC4872] reserved a 32-bit field in the PROTECTION object header. Subsequently, [RFC4873] allocated several bits from that field and left the remainder of the bits reserved. This specification further allocates the Preemption Priority field from the remaining formerly reserved bits. The 32-bit field in the PROTECTION object as defined in [RFC4872] and modified by [RFC4873] is updated by this document as follows: --> 9) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online Style Guide at <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 or phrases. --> 10) <!-- [rfced] The following terms were used inconsistently in this document. We chose to use the latter forms. Please let us know any objections. LSP protection type / LSP Protection Type (per RFC 4872) Protection Object / PROTECTION object (in text) (per RFC 4872, with one exception, which appears to be an oversight) --> Thank you. RFC Editor On Jul 12, 2022, at 3:32 PM, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2022/07/12 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 * 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/rfc9270.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-rfcdiff.html (side by side) For your convenience, we have also created an alt-diff file that will allow you to more easily view changes where text has been deleted or moved: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-alt-diff.html Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-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/rfc9270.original.v2v3.xml XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates only: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.form.xml Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9270 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC9270 (draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-12) Title : GMPLS Signaling Extensions for Shared Mesh Protection Author(s) : J. He, I. Busi, J. Ryoo, B. Yoon, P. Park WG Chair(s) : Vishnu Pavan Beeram, Lou Berger Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
- [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 <draft-ietf-teas-… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 <draft-ietf-t… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 <draft-ietf-t… Jeong-dong Ryoo
- [auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 <draft-… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 <dr… Jeong-dong Ryoo
- Re: [auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 <dr… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 <dr… John Scudder
- Re: [auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 <dr… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 <draft-ietf-t… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 <draft-ietf-t… Hejia (Jia)
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 <draft-ietf-t… byyun
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 <draft-ietf-t… Lynne Bartholomew
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 <draft-ietf-t… 박춘걸(AI Managed Service Projec)
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 <draft-ietf-t… Italo Busi
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 <draft-ietf-t… Lynne Bartholomew