Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9377 <draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-12> for your review

[Antoni Przygienda <[e-mail]>]

Tony it is

Thanks


  *   Tony

From: Alice Russo <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, 21 March 2023 at 21:59
To: Antoni Przygienda <[e-mail]>
Cc: Chris Bowers <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, John Scudder <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9377 <draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-12> for your review
[External Email. Be cautious of content]


Tony,

Thank you for your reply. Please let us know your preference, and we will make a note of it for any documents that may arrive in the queue in the future.

In this case, the approved I-D contained both forms:
A. Przygienda, Ed.       <- header
Tony Przygienda (editor) <- Authors' Addresses

Thank you.
RFC Editor/ar

> On Mar 21, 2023, at 9:29 AM, Antoni Przygienda <prz=[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Alice,
>
> My passport reads officially “Antoni” but first, no’one can stress the pen-ultimate syllable properly in the West and 2nd I’m being fashioned into “Antonio” too often so my default became “Tony” for many, many years now 😉
>
> Pls take your fair pick …
>
>       • Tony
>
> From: Alice Russo <[e-mail]>
> Date: Tuesday, 21 March 2023 at 17:08
> To: Antoni Przygienda <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Chris Bowers <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, John Scudder <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9377 <draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-12> for your review
>
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>
>
> Tony,
>
> Thank you for your reply; we have marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page. May the header be updated from "A. Przygienda, Ed." to "T. Przygienda, Ed." to match what appears in the Authors' Addresses section and most of the past RFCs?
>
> Either way, we recommend that full name in the Authors' Addresses match up with the header.
>
> As far as precedent, in the headers:
> - "A. Przygienda" in RFC 9272 and RFC 8401. (with "Antoni Przygienda" in the Authors' Addresses in RFC 9272)
> - "T. Przygienda" in RFCs 8918, 8556, 8444, 8279, 7987, 5302, 5120, and earlier RFCs.
>
> Thank you.
> RFC Editor/ar
>
> > On Mar 20, 2023, at 1:43 PM, Antoni Przygienda <prz=[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Alice, thanks for the work. Re-read diffs from original version and no further comments
> >
> >       • Tony
> >
> > From: Alice Russo <[e-mail]>
> > Date: Friday, 17 March 2023 at 01:20
> > To: Antoni Przygienda <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: Chris Bowers <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]<[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, John Scudder <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9377 <draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-12> for your review
> >
> > [External Email. Be cautious of content]
> >
> >
> > Tony,
> >
> > Regarding the authors' comments that were in the submitted XML file, they remain in the edited XML file currently -- please review and let us know whether any updates are needed, or it's fine to remove them as this point. They include items such as
> > <!-- @todo: do we make it a SHOULD? -->
> >
> > Thank you.
> > RFC Editor/ar
> >
> > > On Mar 16, 2023, at 5:13 PM, Alice Russo <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Tony,
> > >
> > > Thank you for your reply; details below. The revised files are here (please refresh):
> > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Ht9VIJ3o9TU4SUTlAhcBu8YVP4a4TVKPkUEAhGJXnsGzdegO8tjg_P1l8VZFqY1ENH7z1HUvu9Y$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Ht9VIJ3o9TU4SUTlAhcBu8YVP4a4TVKPkUEAhGJXnsGzdegO8tjg_P1l8VZFqY1ENH7z1HUvu9Y$>
> > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Ht9VIJ3o9TU4SUTlAhcBu8YVP4a4TVKPkUEAhGJXnsGzdegO8tjg_P1l8VZFqY1ENH7zqspr-ws$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Ht9VIJ3o9TU4SUTlAhcBu8YVP4a4TVKPkUEAhGJXnsGzdegO8tjg_P1l8VZFqY1ENH7zqspr-ws$>
> > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Ht9VIJ3o9TU4SUTlAhcBu8YVP4a4TVKPkUEAhGJXnsGzdegO8tjg_P1l8VZFqY1ENH7z9Xqno9w$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Ht9VIJ3o9TU4SUTlAhcBu8YVP4a4TVKPkUEAhGJXnsGzdegO8tjg_P1l8VZFqY1ENH7z9Xqno9w$>
> > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Ht9VIJ3o9TU4SUTlAhcBu8YVP4a4TVKPkUEAhGJXnsGzdegO8tjg_P1l8VZFqY1ENH7zUgKbHbQ$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Ht9VIJ3o9TU4SUTlAhcBu8YVP4a4TVKPkUEAhGJXnsGzdegO8tjg_P1l8VZFqY1ENH7zUgKbHbQ$>
> > >
> > > This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D:
> > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Ht9VIJ3o9TU4SUTlAhcBu8YVP4a4TVKPkUEAhGJXnsGzdegO8tjg_P1l8VZFqY1ENH7zTJNLCBg$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Ht9VIJ3o9TU4SUTlAhcBu8YVP4a4TVKPkUEAhGJXnsGzdegO8tjg_P1l8VZFqY1ENH7zTJNLCBg$>
> > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377-rfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Ht9VIJ3o9TU4SUTlAhcBu8YVP4a4TVKPkUEAhGJXnsGzdegO8tjg_P1l8VZFqY1ENH7znInsXcg$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377-rfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Ht9VIJ3o9TU4SUTlAhcBu8YVP4a4TVKPkUEAhGJXnsGzdegO8tjg_P1l8VZFqY1ENH7znInsXcg$>  (side by side)
> > >
> > > This diff file shows only the changes since the last posted version:
> > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377-lastrfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Ht9VIJ3o9TU4SUTlAhcBu8YVP4a4TVKPkUEAhGJXnsGzdegO8tjg_P1l8VZFqY1ENH7zQ0kM4f8$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377-lastrfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Ht9VIJ3o9TU4SUTlAhcBu8YVP4a4TVKPkUEAhGJXnsGzdegO8tjg_P1l8VZFqY1ENH7zQ0kM4f8$>  (side by side)
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Mar 15, 2023, at 2:37 PM, Antoni Przygienda <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I read side by side. Final Observations:
> > >>
> > >> . please do not split across lines things like “IS-IS Level 1”. Those are basically “one word concepts”
> > >
> > > Added entities in the XML source file to prevent line breaks within those terms in the abstract.  (And now there's a line break between "IS-IS Level 2" and "(L2)" in the text output, which is acceptable from our perspective. As you might imagine, this type of control is a slippery slope.)
> > >
> > >> . “A tunnel that is between two clients” is very awkward, maybe “A tunnel established between two clients which is”.  (since it’s the tunnel visible in L1 here)
> > >
> > > Updated as follows (using 'that' instead of 'which' because it's restrictive):
> > >
> > >   L1 shortcut:
> > >      A tunnel established between two clients that is visible in L1
> > >      only and is used as a next hop, i.e., to carry data traffic in
> > >      tunnel-based deployment mode.
> > >
> > > Alternatively, here's an option to avoid the relative clause:
> > >
> > >  L1 shortcut:
> > >     A tunnel established between two clients; it is visible in L1
> > >     only and is used as a next hop, i.e., to carry data traffic in
> > >     tunnel-based deployment mode.
> > >
> > >
> > >> . “a flood reflection mechanism”. Well, there is only one so either no article or determinate please
> > >
> > > Updated to "the flood reflection mechanism".
> > >
> > >
> > >> . “T he” is split across lines in Flood Reflection Client ID definition
> > >
> > > Good catch. This is a known issue with xml2rfc (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/ietf-tools/xml2rfc/issues/532__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Ht9VIJ3o9TU4SUTlAhcBu8YVP4a4TVKPkUEAhGJXnsGzdegO8tjg_P1l8VZFqY1ENH7zcrYmoCY$  and againhttps://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/ietf-tools/xml2rfc/issues/857__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Ht9VIJ3o9TU4SUTlAhcBu8YVP4a4TVKPkUEAhGJXnsGzdegO8tjg_P1l8VZFqY1ENH7zY9cyx04$ ). At this point, there are at least a couple options:
> > > a) remove the expanded term.
> > > b) insert a line break after the colon (by changing the whole list to newline="true").
> > >
> > > Have done (a) -- removed the expanded term because expanding "ID" as "Identifier" is not necessary. Please let us know if you prefer otherwise.
> > >
> > >
> > >> . Splitting off and saying “However, in any case” changes the meaning a bit. Maybe “In all those cases …”
> > >
> > > Updated accordingly.
> > >
> > >
> > >> . “An L1 shortcut …”. Not a vocal, shouldn’t that be “A L1 shortcut … “
> > >> . “into an L1 that connects” should be “into an L1 area that …”
> > >
> > > As John noted, if "L1" is read "ell won", it's "an L1". Here's the Chicago Manual of Style on the topic.
> > >
> > > "Before an abbreviation, a symbol, or a numeral, the use of a or an depends on (or, conversely, determines) how the term is pronounced. In the first example below, “MS” would be pronounced em ess ..."
> > > (from Chapter 7.33: “A” and “an” before abbreviations, symbols, and numerals)
> > >
> > >
> > >> . a “non-FR router” could be expaned to “a router not participating in flood reflection”
> > >
> > > Added as follows:
> > >  (a "non-FR router", i.e., a router not participating in flood reflection)
> > >
> > > It makes the resulting sentence even more complex:
> > >
> > >   In certain cases where reflectors are attached to the same broadcast
> > >   medium, and where some other L2 router that is neither a flood
> > >   reflector nor a flood reflector client (a "non-FR router", i.e., a
> > >   router not participating in flood reflection) attaches to the same
> > >   broadcast medium, flooding between the reflectors in question might
> > >   not succeed, potentially partitioning the flood reflection domain.
> > >
> > > Alternatively, let us know if you want to rephrase it as follows or otherwise.
> > >
> > >   Flooding between reflectors might not succeed, thereby potentially
> > >   partitioning the flood reflection domain, in certain cases where:
> > >   *  reflectors are attached to the same broadcast medium and
> > >   *  some other L2 router that is neither a flood reflector nor a
> > >      flood reflector client (a "non-FR router", i.e., a router not
> > >      participating in flood reflection) attaches to the same broadcast
> > >      medium.
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > > RFC Editor/ar
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Thanks
> > >>
> > >>      • Tony
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> From: Alice Russo <[e-mail]>
> > >> Date: Wednesday, 15 March 2023 at 19:47
> > >> To: Antoni Przygienda <[e-mail]>
> > >> Cc: Chris Bowers <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]<[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, John Scudder <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]<[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> > >> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9377 <draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-12> for your review
> > >>
> > >> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Tony,
> > >>
> > >> Thank you for your reply; details below. The revised files are here (please refresh):
> > >>  https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!B9ONFT9caWXejp4EDeyz9V282PreLIMnOPYN59SnwtVpXog-ynWlN5q0YoowhMpCEm2B7noyYjY$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!B9ONFT9caWXejp4EDeyz9V282PreLIMnOPYN59SnwtVpXog-ynWlN5q0YoowhMpCEm2B7noyYjY$>
> > >>  https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!B9ONFT9caWXejp4EDeyz9V282PreLIMnOPYN59SnwtVpXog-ynWlN5q0YoowhMpCEm2BKpPIopw$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!B9ONFT9caWXejp4EDeyz9V282PreLIMnOPYN59SnwtVpXog-ynWlN5q0YoowhMpCEm2BKpPIopw$>
> > >>  https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!B9ONFT9caWXejp4EDeyz9V282PreLIMnOPYN59SnwtVpXog-ynWlN5q0YoowhMpCEm2BtY7EwUU$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!B9ONFT9caWXejp4EDeyz9V282PreLIMnOPYN59SnwtVpXog-ynWlN5q0YoowhMpCEm2BtY7EwUU$>
> > >>  https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!B9ONFT9caWXejp4EDeyz9V282PreLIMnOPYN59SnwtVpXog-ynWlN5q0YoowhMpCEm2BnjlCUUc$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!B9ONFT9caWXejp4EDeyz9V282PreLIMnOPYN59SnwtVpXog-ynWlN5q0YoowhMpCEm2BnjlCUUc$>
> > >>
> > >> This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D:
> > >>  https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!B9ONFT9caWXejp4EDeyz9V282PreLIMnOPYN59SnwtVpXog-ynWlN5q0YoowhMpCEm2BntKNzC4$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!B9ONFT9caWXejp4EDeyz9V282PreLIMnOPYN59SnwtVpXog-ynWlN5q0YoowhMpCEm2BntKNzC4$>
> > >>  https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377-rfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!B9ONFT9caWXejp4EDeyz9V282PreLIMnOPYN59SnwtVpXog-ynWlN5q0YoowhMpCEm2B4969Us4$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377-rfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!B9ONFT9caWXejp4EDeyz9V282PreLIMnOPYN59SnwtVpXog-ynWlN5q0YoowhMpCEm2B4969Us4$>  (side by side)
> > >>
> > >> This diff file shows only the changes since the last posted version:
> > >>  https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377-lastrfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!B9ONFT9caWXejp4EDeyz9V282PreLIMnOPYN59SnwtVpXog-ynWlN5q0YoowhMpCEm2Bb2JJmDs$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377-lastrfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!B9ONFT9caWXejp4EDeyz9V282PreLIMnOPYN59SnwtVpXog-ynWlN5q0YoowhMpCEm2Bb2JJmDs$>
> > >>
> > >> Re: #13c
> > >>> LSPDU is seldom used now. It’s LSP normally
> > >>
> > >> Both were used in the original; we have updated the document to "LSP" only.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Re: #13b
> > >>> As to non-FR or “non FR” or “not an FR”, everything fine for me
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> No changes to "non-FR" have been made.
> > >>
> > >> Our original question was whether it means 'non flood reflection'. Sounds like it means 'non flood reflector', which seems sufficiently clear in context:
> > >>     some other L2 router that is neither a flood reflector nor a flood reflector client (a "non-FR router")
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Re: #14
> > >>> As I write above, removing any “historical”, “traditional” or some such and replacting with this reference will clarify
> > >>
> > >> All instances of 'traditional' were replaced with 'standard' as you requested. One sentence has been added in Section 3:  "In this document, the term "standard" refers to IS-IS as specified in [ISO10589]." Please provide OLD/NEW text (or update the XML file available from https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!B9ONFT9caWXejp4EDeyz9V282PreLIMnOPYN59SnwtVpXog-ynWlN5q0YoowhMpCEm2BnjlCUUc$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!B9ONFT9caWXejp4EDeyz9V282PreLIMnOPYN59SnwtVpXog-ynWlN5q0YoowhMpCEm2BnjlCUUc$> ) if further updates are needed.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> FYI, this document as been updated to 'next hop' (noun) and 'next-hop' (adjective) in keeping with referenced documents (e.g., RFC 9012).
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> We will wait to hear from you again and from your coauthors
> > >> before continuing the publication process. This page shows
> > >> the AUTH48 status of your document:
> > >>  https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9377__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!B9ONFT9caWXejp4EDeyz9V282PreLIMnOPYN59SnwtVpXog-ynWlN5q0YoowhMpCEm2BzojESsY$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9377__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!B9ONFT9caWXejp4EDeyz9V282PreLIMnOPYN59SnwtVpXog-ynWlN5q0YoowhMpCEm2BzojESsY$>
> > >>
> > >> Thank you.
> > >> RFC Editor/ar
> > >>
> > >>> On Mar 13, 2023, at 9:50 AM, Antoni Przygienda <prz=[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Alice,
> > >>>
> > >>> Yes, we can add such text, probably good clarification anyway …
> > >>>
> > >>> Rest inline
> > >>>
> > >>>      • Tony
> > >>>
> > >>> From: Alice Russo <[e-mail]>
> > >>> Date: Friday, 10 March 2023 at 21:14
> > >>> To: Antoni Przygienda <[e-mail]>
> > >>> Cc: Chris Bowers <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]<[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]<[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, John Scudder <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]<[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> > >>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9377 <draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-12> for your review
> > >>>
> > >>> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Tony,
> > >>>
> > >>> An addition on:
> > >>>> Regarding the following note, please clarify where you would like [ISO10589] to be cited. Is your request to cite it at each mention of 'standard'?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> To avoid confusing the skilled reader following reference must be used when “standard” is meant
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>   [ISO10589] ISO, "Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-
> > >>>>>              Domain Routing Exchange Protocol for use in Conjunction
> > >>>>>              with the Protocol for Providing the Connectionless-mode
> > >>>>>              Network Service (ISO 8473)", ISO/IEC 10589:2002, November
> > >>>>>              2002.
> > >>>
> > >>> One option is to add text such as
> > >>>
> > >>>    In this document, the term "standard" (as in "standard L2 adjacencies") refers to [ISO10589].
> > >>>
> > >>> Thank you.
> > >>> RFC Editor/ar
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Mar 10, 2023, at 10:03 AM, Alice Russo <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Tony,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thank you for your reply. We have updated the document accordingly; please see the follow-ups below. The revised files are here (please refresh):
> > >>>>  https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FH4aIH6l4HNV9cct7Od_RCEjdi9Nov-WS-4PXfqft_OGrhaG9sc11WowBWWoFC7_eSkqjOT1LLo$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FH4aIH6l4HNV9cct7Od_RCEjdi9Nov-WS-4PXfqft_OGrhaG9sc11WowBWWoFC7_eSkqjOT1LLo$>
> > >>>>  https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FH4aIH6l4HNV9cct7Od_RCEjdi9Nov-WS-4PXfqft_OGrhaG9sc11WowBWWoFC7_eSkqEYzGChA$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FH4aIH6l4HNV9cct7Od_RCEjdi9Nov-WS-4PXfqft_OGrhaG9sc11WowBWWoFC7_eSkqEYzGChA$>
> > >>>>  https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FH4aIH6l4HNV9cct7Od_RCEjdi9Nov-WS-4PXfqft_OGrhaG9sc11WowBWWoFC7_eSkq10E_Yl4$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FH4aIH6l4HNV9cct7Od_RCEjdi9Nov-WS-4PXfqft_OGrhaG9sc11WowBWWoFC7_eSkq10E_Yl4$>
> > >>>>  https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FH4aIH6l4HNV9cct7Od_RCEjdi9Nov-WS-4PXfqft_OGrhaG9sc11WowBWWoFC7_eSkqyghcH74$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FH4aIH6l4HNV9cct7Od_RCEjdi9Nov-WS-4PXfqft_OGrhaG9sc11WowBWWoFC7_eSkqyghcH74$>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D:
> > >>>>  https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FH4aIH6l4HNV9cct7Od_RCEjdi9Nov-WS-4PXfqft_OGrhaG9sc11WowBWWoFC7_eSkq15JBpZ0$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FH4aIH6l4HNV9cct7Od_RCEjdi9Nov-WS-4PXfqft_OGrhaG9sc11WowBWWoFC7_eSkq15JBpZ0$>
> > >>>>  https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377-rfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FH4aIH6l4HNV9cct7Od_RCEjdi9Nov-WS-4PXfqft_OGrhaG9sc11WowBWWoFC7_eSkqnIsWuu4$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377-rfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FH4aIH6l4HNV9cct7Od_RCEjdi9Nov-WS-4PXfqft_OGrhaG9sc11WowBWWoFC7_eSkqnIsWuu4$>  (side by side)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far:
> > >>>>  https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377-auth48diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FH4aIH6l4HNV9cct7Od_RCEjdi9Nov-WS-4PXfqft_OGrhaG9sc11WowBWWoFC7_eSkq_cOaGzM$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377-auth48diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FH4aIH6l4HNV9cct7Od_RCEjdi9Nov-WS-4PXfqft_OGrhaG9sc11WowBWWoFC7_eSkq_cOaGzM$>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -- Re: #11
> > >>>>> Please do not remove, the sentence applies each to a different mechanism described in the according paragraph. Even they are verbatimely same.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> OK; the repeated sentence has been restored in the Security Considerations. Should a lead-in phrase be added to make it clear that it applies to a different mechanism than the first instance?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Currently appears twice:
> > >>>>>   Since the available security procedures will vary by
> > >>>>>   deployment and tunnel type, the details of securing tunnels are
> > >>>>>   beyond the scope of this document.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> No lead sentence necessary, the context of the paragraph defines which tunnel we talk about
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -- Re: #13b and 13c
> > >>>> Would you like any updates for "non-FR"  or for the usage of LSPDU vs. LSP?
> > >>>
> > >>> LSPDU is seldom used now. It’s LSP normally
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> As to non-FR or “non FR” or “not an FR”, everything fine for me
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -- Re: #14
> > >>>> We have updated the document as requested, including changing 'traditional' to 'standard'.  Along the lines of John's suggestions, other options, which may not be accurate choices in this case, include 'conventional', 'typical', 'commonly used', and 'long-established'.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Regarding the following note, please clarify where you would like [ISO10589] to be cited. Is your request to cite it at each mention of 'standard'?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> As I write above, removing any “historical”, “traditional” or some such and replacting with this reference will clarify
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> To avoid confusing the skilled reader following reference must be used when “standard” is meant
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>   [ISO10589] ISO, "Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-
> > >>>>>              Domain Routing Exchange Protocol for use in Conjunction
> > >>>>>              with the Protocol for Providing the Connectionless-mode
> > >>>>>              Network Service (ISO 8473)", ISO/IEC 10589:2002, November
> > >>>>>              2002.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -- Section 2.1: Should "whereas" be "where" here? If not, how should this be rephrased?
> > >>>
> > >>> “where” will work as well
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Original:
> > >>>>   ISIS Level-1 and Level-2 areas, mostly abbreviated as L1 and L2:
> > >>>>      Traditional ISIS concepts whereas a routing domain has two
> > >>>>      "levels" with a single L2 area being the "backbone" that connects
> > >>>>      multiple L1 areas for scaling and reliability purposes.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Current:
> > >>>>   IS-IS Level 1 and Level 2 areas (mostly abbreviated as L1 and L2):
> > >>>>      IS-IS concepts whereas a routing domain has two "levels" with a
> > >>>>      single L2 area being the "backbone" that connects multiple L1
> > >>>>      areas for scaling and reliability purposes.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -- Section 1: FYI, this sentence has been updated from 'standard' to 'Standards Track document' as it seems to refer to the status of a document in the IETF context. Please let us know if you prefer otherwise.
> > >>>
> > >>> ack
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Original:
> > >>>>   It is expected that deployment at scale, and suitable time in
> > >>>>   operation, will provide sufficient evidence to either make this
> > >>>>   extension a standard, or suggest necessary modifications to accomplish this.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Perhaps:
> > >>>>   It is expected that deployment at scale, and suitable time in
> > >>>>   operation, will provide sufficient evidence to either put this
> > >>>>   extension into a Standards Track document or suggest necessary
> > >>>>   modifications to accomplish that.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Agreed
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> We will wait to hear from you again and from your coauthors
> > >>>> before continuing the publication process. This page shows
> > >>>> the AUTH48 status of your document:
> > >>>>  https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9377__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FH4aIH6l4HNV9cct7Od_RCEjdi9Nov-WS-4PXfqft_OGrhaG9sc11WowBWWoFC7_eSkqbEAPlfw$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9377__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!FH4aIH6l4HNV9cct7Od_RCEjdi9Nov-WS-4PXfqft_OGrhaG9sc11WowBWWoFC7_eSkqbEAPlfw$>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thank you.
> > >>>> RFC Editor/ar
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Mar 8, 2023, at 1:36 PM, Antoni Przygienda <prz=[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>     • Keywords: scalability
> > >>>>>     • Yes, please
> > >>>>>     • Terminology is good
> > >>>>>     • Ok, as long it’s consistent across the document
> > >>>>>     • Massaged
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>      Traditional IS-IS architecture prescribes a routing domain with two
> > >>>>>      "levels" where a single L2 area functions as the "backbone" that connects
> > >>>>>      multiple L1 areas amongst themselves for scaling and reliability purposes.
> > >>>>>      In such architecture, L2 can be used as transit for traffic carried from one L1 area to another, but
> > >>>>>      L1 areas themselves cannot be used for that purpose because the L2 level must
> > >>>>>      be a single "connected" entity, and all traffic exiting an L1 area flows along L2 routers until the
> > >>>>>      traffic arrives at the destination L1 area itself.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>     • Please change per suggestion
> > >>>>>     • Ditto
> > >>>>>     • Yes, please change per suggestion
> > >>>>>     • Ditto
> > >>>>>     • Ditto
> > >>>>>     • Please do not remove, the sentence applies each to a different mechanism described in the according paragraph. Even they are verbatimely same.
> > >>>>>     • Please change per suggestion
> > >>>>>     • Remove CAPS on all occurences of “RESERVED”
> > >>>>>     • Quickly did after reading NIST. I don’t see any terms that are not inclusive though of course anything can be argued to be non-inclusive in the ever expanding list of political correctness. So,  unless I’m pointed to specific terms that insult I am at a loss what to look for further.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> As to “traditional”, here are suggestions to make it (more) readable for <insert here politically correct term for genus homo individuals> not skilled in ISIS previous art.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> “This arrangement gives the L2 topology significantly better scaling properties than traditionally used flat designs.”
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Could be replaced with “prevalently” ?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> “Traditional ISIS concepts whereas a routing domain has two "levels" with a single L2 area being the "backbone" that connects multiple L1 areas for scaling and reliability purposes.”
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Traditional can be removed
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> “In traditional ISIS L2 can be used as transit for L1-L1 traffic but L1”
> > >>>>> “The traditional approach to increasing the scale of an IS-IS deployment is to break it up into multiple L1 flooding domains and a single L2 backbone”
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Can be replaced with “standard”. To avoid confusing the skilled reader following reference must be used when “standard” is meant
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>   [ISO10589] ISO, "Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-
> > >>>>>              Domain Routing Exchange Protocol for use in Conjunction
> > >>>>>              with the Protocol for Providing the Connectionless-mode
> > >>>>>              Network Service (ISO 8473)", ISO/IEC 10589:2002, November
> > >>>>>              2002.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> “Unmodified (traditional) L2 routers”
> > >>>>> “(those having traditional L2 adjacencies)”
> > >>>>> “client will have both traditional L2 adjacencies and flood reflector L2 adjacencies.”
> > >>>>> “A flood reflector MUST NOT form any traditional L2 adjacencies.”
> > >>>>> “flood reflector MUST NOT form any traditional L2 adjacencies.”
> > >>>>> “When two flood reflector clients form a traditional L2 adjacency the Cluster IDs are disregarded.”
> > >>>>> “
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Same
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thanks for the thorough read through and good suggestions
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>     • Tony
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> > >>>>> Date: Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 08:56
> > >>>>> To: Antoni Przygienda <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]<[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> > >>>>> Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, John Scudder <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]<[e-mail]>
> > >>>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9377 <draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-12> for your review
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Authors,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/search__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytVj6qNPYpg$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/search__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytVj6qNPYpg$> .
> > >>>>> -->
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] May we update this sentence as follows for correctness?
> > >>>>> The changes are to
> > >>>>> - move the phrase "that use the entire forwarding capacity
> > >>>>> of the L1 areas" so that it modifies "networks"
> > >>>>> - change "introducing" to "introduces" for consistent verb tense
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Original:
> > >>>>>   It allows networks to be built that use
> > >>>>>   the entire forwarding capacity of the L1 areas, while at the same
> > >>>>>   time introducing control plane scaling benefits provided by L2 flood
> > >>>>>   reflectors.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Perhaps:
> > >>>>>   It allows networks that use
> > >>>>>   the entire forwarding capacity of the L1 areas to be built, while
> > >>>>>   at the same time it introduces control plane scaling benefits that
> > >>>>>   are provided by L2 flood reflectors.
> > >>>>> -->
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 3) <!-- [rfced] Since a glossary is an alphabetized list of terms,
> > >>>>> may we alphabetize the terms in the "Glossary"? Or would you prefer to
> > >>>>> change "Glossary" to "Terminology" and leave the terms in
> > >>>>> their current order?
> > >>>>> -->
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] FYI, to match past RFCs, we updated "IS-IS Level-1" and "IS-IS
> > >>>>> Level-2" to "IS-IS Level 1" and "IS-IS Level 2", respectively.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Original:
> > >>>>>   ISIS Level-1 and Level-2 areas, mostly abbreviated as L1 and L2:
> > >>>>>      Traditional ISIS concepts whereas a routing domain has two
> > >>>>>      "levels" with a single L2 area being the "backbone" that connects
> > >>>>>      multiple L1 areas for scaling and reliability purposes.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Current:
> > >>>>>   IS-IS Level 1 and Level 2 areas (mostly abbreviated as L1 and L2):
> > >>>>>      Traditional IS-IS concepts whereas a routing domain has two
> > >>>>>      "levels" with a single L2 area being the "backbone" that connects
> > >>>>>      multiple L1 areas for scaling and reliability purposes.
> > >>>>> -->
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] We had trouble parsing these two sentences and understanding
> > >>>>> what "it" refers to at the end of the second sentence. For clarity, may
> > >>>>> we update the sentence as follows or otherwise?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Also, please clarify "L1-L1". Should "L1-L1" be written "L1->L1"
> > >>>>> to use notation similar to within this document for "L2->L1"?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Original:
> > >>>>>      Traditional ISIS concepts whereas a routing domain has two
> > >>>>>      "levels" with a single L2 area being the "backbone" that connects
> > >>>>>      multiple L1 areas for scaling and reliability purposes. In
> > >>>>>      traditional ISIS L2 can be used as transit for L1-L1 traffic but
> > >>>>>      L1 areas cannot be used for that purpose since L2 level must be
> > >>>>>      "connected" and all traffic flows along L2 routers until it
> > >>>>>      arrives at the destination L1 area.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Perhaps:
> > >>>>>      Traditional IS-IS concepts where a routing domain has two
> > >>>>>      "levels" with a single L2 area being the "backbone" that connects
> > >>>>>      multiple L1 areas for scaling and reliability purposes.  In
> > >>>>>      traditional ISIS, L2 can be used as transit for L1-L1 traffic, but
> > >>>>>      L1 areas cannot be used for that purpose because the L2 level must
> > >>>>>      be "connected", and all traffic flows along L2 routers until the
> > >>>>>      traffic arrives at the destination L1 area.
> > >>>>> -->
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] The comma in this sentence breaks apart the objects of the
> > >>>>> verb. We suggest replacing ", and" with "and to build". Please let us
> > >>>>> know if you prefer otherwise.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Original:
> > >>>>>   Flood Reflector Client:
> > >>>>>      Node configured to build Flood Reflector Adjacencies to Flood
> > >>>>>      Reflectors, and normal adjacencies to other clients and L2 nodes
> > >>>>>      not participating in flood reflection.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Perhaps:
> > >>>>>   Flood Reflector Client:
> > >>>>>      Node configured to build Flood Reflector Adjacencies to Flood
> > >>>>>      Reflectors and to build normal adjacencies to other clients and
> > >>>>>      L2 nodes not participating in flood reflection.
> > >>>>> -->
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 7) <!-- [rfced] Does "this" refer to "a flood reflection mechanism"
> > >>>>> mentioned in the preceding paragraph?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Original:
> > >>>>>   First, this allows multi-area IS-IS deployments to scale without any
> > >>>>>   major modifications in the IS-IS implementation on most of the nodes
> > >>>>>   deployed in the network.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Suggested:
> > >>>>>   First, a flood reflection mechanism allows multi-area IS-IS deployments
> > >>>>>   to scale without any major modifications in the IS-IS implementation on
> > >>>>>   most of the nodes deployed in the network.
> > >>>>> -->
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Please clarify this sentence. Is "L2 computation"
> > >>>>> the subject of "can lead"?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Original:
> > >>>>>   The L2
> > >>>>>   computation determines the egress L1/L2 and with that can create
> > >>>>>   illusions of ECMP where there is none, and in certain scenarios lead
> > >>>>>   to an L1/L2 egress which is not globally optimal.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Perhaps:
> > >>>>>   The L2
> > >>>>>   computation determines the egress L1/L2 and, with that, can create
> > >>>>>   illusions of ECMP where there is none; and in certain scenarios,
> > >>>>>   the L2 computation can lead to an L1/L2 egress that is not globally
> > >>>>>   optimal.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> -->
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 9) <!-- [rfced] This sentence in Section 4.2 and 4.4 seems to be pointing to
> > >>>>> Section 4.1. Would you like these two instances to mention the section number?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Original:
> > >>>>>   Flood Reflection Cluster ID:  The Flood Reflection Cluster Identifier
> > >>>>>      is the same as that defined in the Flood Reflection TLV and obeys
> > >>>>>      the same rules.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Perhaps:
> > >>>>>   Flood Reflection Cluster ID:  The Flood Reflection Cluster Identifier
> > >>>>>      is the same as that defined in the Flood Reflection TLV in Section
> > >>>>>      4.1 and obeys the same rules.
> > >>>>> -->
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 10) <!-- [rfced] Please clarify this sentence, particularly "and in the
> > >>>>> following hop the L2 egress to which it has a forwarding tunnel."
> > >>>>> May we update to the following? Or is there another way we can update for
> > >>>>> clarity?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Original:
> > >>>>>   Due
> > >>>>>   to the rules in Section 4.6 the computation in the resulting topology
> > >>>>>   is relatively simple, the L2 SPF from a flood reflector client is
> > >>>>>   guaranteed to reach the Flood Reflector within a single hop, and in
> > >>>>>   the following hop the L2 egress to which it has a forwarding tunnel.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Perhaps:
> > >>>>>   Due
> > >>>>>   to the rules in Section 4.6, the computation in the resulting topology
> > >>>>>   is relatively simple: the L2 SPF from a flood reflector client is
> > >>>>>   guaranteed to reach the Flood Reflector within a single hop, and in
> > >>>>>   the following hop, it is guaranteed to reach the L2 egress to which
> > >>>>>   it has a forwarding tunnel.
> > >>>>> -->
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 11) <!--[rfced] FYI, this sentence appears at the end of the 1st paragraph
> > >>>>> and was repeated at the end of the 2nd paragraph of the Security Considerations,
> > >>>>> so the second instance has been removed. Please let us know if you prefer otherwise.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>   Since the available security procedures will vary by
> > >>>>>   deployment and tunnel type, the details of securing tunnels are
> > >>>>>   beyond the scope of this document.
> > >>>>> -->
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 12) <!--[rfced] May this be rephrased for clarity? In particular, the phrase
> > >>>>> "in case a tunnel is compromised if the tunnel itself does not provide..."
> > >>>>> reads oddly; may we change "if" to "and" as shown below?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Original:
> > >>>>>   Additionally, the usual IS-IS security mechanisms [RFC5304] SHOULD be
> > >>>>>   deployed to prevent misrepresentation of routing information by an
> > >>>>>   attacker in case a tunnel is compromised if the tunnel itself does
> > >>>>>   not provide mechanisms strong enough guaranteeing the integrity of
> > >>>>>   the messages exchanged.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Perhaps:
> > >>>>>   Additionally, the usual IS-IS security mechanisms [RFC5304] SHOULD be
> > >>>>>   deployed to prevent misrepresentation of routing information by an
> > >>>>>   attacker in case a tunnel is compromised and the tunnel itself does
> > >>>>>   not provide mechanisms strong enough to guarantee the integrity of
> > >>>>>   the messages exchanged.
> > >>>>> -->
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 13) <!-- [rfced] Terminology:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> a) This term is capitalized inconsistently. Please review and let us
> > >>>>> know if/how they may be made consistent.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Reserved vs. RESERVED
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> b) Please clarify "non-FR"; does it refer to "non flood reflection"?
> > >>>>> May it be explained as follows, or otherwise?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Original:
> > >>>>>   In certain cases where reflectors are attached to same broadcast
> > >>>>>   medium, and where some other L2 router, which is neither a flood
> > >>>>>   reflector nor a flood reflector client (a "non-FR router") attaches ...
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Perhaps:
> > >>>>>   In certain cases where reflectors are attached to same broadcast
> > >>>>>   medium, and where some other L2 router that is neither a flood
> > >>>>>   reflector nor a flood reflector client (a "non-FR router", where
> > >>>>>   "FR" stands for flood reflection) attaches ...
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> c) Please review usage of LSPDU vs. LSP.
> > >>>>> It seems this document uses both to refer to "Link State PDU".
> > >>>>> For consistency, would you like to update all instances of LSPDU to LSP,
> > >>>>> or vice versa?
> > >>>>> -->
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 14) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online
> > >>>>> Style Guide <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/*inclusive_language__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytVg5iF7yYw$ >
> > >>>>> and let us know if any changes are needed.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> In addition, please consider whether "tradition", "traditional", and
> > >>>>> "traditionally" should be updated for clarity.  While the NIST website
> > >>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructio*5C__;JQ!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CTtw8b8jojiV7V4XbM1zBz88j4hp9-_E-Dy6iHRNVkEuVQP7EFJK7f12aL1hMJCqBCkc24Mk18PytVjkoQ-5hA$
> > >>>>> ns#table1>
> > >>>>> indicates that this term is potentially biased, it is also ambiguous.
> > >>>>> "Tradition" is a subjective term, as it is not the same for everyone.
> > >>>>> -->
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thank you.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> RFC Editor/st/ar
> > >>>>>
> > >>
> > >> Juniper Business Use Only
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> > Juniper Business Use Only
> >
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>




Juniper Business Use Only