Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9514 <draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-14> for your review

[Madison Church <[e-mail]>]

Greetings,

This is a friendly weekly reminder that this document awaits your attention.  Please review the document-specific questions and AUTH48 announcement. Let us know if we can be of assistance as you begin the AUTH48 review process.

The AUTH48 status page of this document is viewable at:
  http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9514

The AUTH48 FAQs are available at:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/#auth48

We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Thank you,
RFC Editor/mc

> On Oct 30, 2023, at 7:08 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> Authors and AD*,
> 
> *AD, please see question #1 below.
> 
> Authors, while reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
> 
> 
> 1) <!-- [rfced] *AD and authors, please let us know if the normative reference to
> RFC 7752 should be updated to 7752bis (see
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis/17/). Note
> that 7752bis was previously approved and then put on hold by the AD, but
> it is now back in EDIT state. If we update to reference 7752bis, both
> this document and RFC-to-be 9513 will be published at the same time as
> 7752bis.
> 
> Note that this document makes allocations in the "BGP-LS NLRI Types" and
> "BGP-LS NLRI and Attribute TLVs" registries.  The "BGP-LS NLRI and Attribute
> TLVs" registry was called the "BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix
> Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs" registry in RFC 7752 and changed by
> 7752bis. The name currently in the IANA registry is "BGP-LS NLRI and
> Attribute TLVs". See
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml#node-descriptor-link-descriptor-prefix-descriptor-attribute-tlv.
> 
> If you choose to retain the reference to RFC 7752, we will use the registry
> name in that document ("BGP-LS Node Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix
> Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs"). If you choose to wait to publish at the same
> time as 7752bis, we will use the updated name ("BGP-LS NLRI and Attribute
> TLVs").
> -->
> 
> 
> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please note that the title of the document has been updated as
> follows. Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322
> ("RFC Style Guide").
> 
> Original:
>  BGP Link State Extensions for SRv6
> 
> Current:
>  Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Extensions for Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6)
> -->
> 
> 
> 3) <!-- [rfced] Would it be helpful to clarity "a separate document" here? Is
> this referring to a particular RFC?
> 
> Original:
>   The BGP-LS address-family solution for SRv6
>   described in this document is similar to BGP-LS for SR for the MPLS
>   data-plane defined in a separate document.
> -->
> 
> 
> 4) <!-- [rfced] We see two instances each of the following phrases in this
> document. May we update to one form for consistency?
>   
> ...using Direct as the Protocol-ID
> ...using Direct Protocol-ID
> -->
> 
> 
> 5) <!-- [rfced] Should "and using" here be updated to either "using" or "and uses"?
> 
> Original:
>   The SRv6 information pertaining to a node is advertised via the BGP-
>   LS Node NLRI and using the BGP-LS Attribute TLVs as follows:
>   ...
>   The SRv6 information pertaining to a link is advertised via the BGP-
>   LS Link NLRI and using the BGP-LS Attribute TLVs as follows:
>   ...
>   The SRv6 information pertaining to a prefix is advertised via the
>   BGP-LS Prefix NLRI and using the BGP-LS Attribute TLVs as follows:
> 
> Perhaps ("using"):
>   The SRv6 information pertaining to a node is advertised via the BGP-
>   LS Node NLRI using the BGP-LS Attribute TLVs as follows:
>   ...
>   The SRv6 information pertaining to a link is advertised via the BGP-
>   LS Link NLRI using the BGP-LS Attribute TLVs as follows:
>   ...
>   The SRv6 information pertaining to a prefix is advertised via the
>   BGP-LS Prefix NLRI using the BGP-LS Attribute TLVs as follows:
> 
> Or ("and uses"):
>   The SRv6 information pertaining to a node is advertised via the BGP-
>   LS Node NLRI and uses the BGP-LS Attribute TLVs as follows:
>   ...
>   The SRv6 information pertaining to a link is advertised via the BGP-
>   LS Link NLRI and uses the BGP-LS Attribute TLVs as follows:
>   ...
>   The SRv6 information pertaining to a prefix is advertised via the
>   BGP-LS Prefix NLRI and uses the BGP-LS Attribute TLVs as follows:
> -->
> 
> 
> 6) <!-- [rfced] Please clarify "are identical as specified" here. Is the meaning
> that the new MSD types in this document have the same description and
> semantics as the MSD types defined in
> [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions]? Note that this sentence appears
> twice in the document.
> 
> Original:
>   The description and semantics of these new MSD-
>   types for BGP-LS are identical as specified in
>   [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions].
> 
> Perhaps:
>   The description and semantics of these new MSD-
>   types for BGP-LS are identical to those specified in
>   [RFC9352].
> -->
> 
> 
> 7) <!-- [rfced] Please clarify "for IGPs, direct, and static configuration" here.
> 
> Original:
>   *  Local Node Descriptors TLV: set of Node Descriptor TLVs for the
>      local node, as defined in [RFC7752] for IGPs, direct, and static
>      configuration or as defined in [RFC9086] for BGP protocol.
> 
> Perhaps:
>   Local Node Descriptors TLV:  Set of Node Descriptor TLVs for the
>      local node as defined in [RFC7752] for IGPs, the Direct Protocol-ID,
>      and the Static configuration Protocol-ID or as defined in [RFC9086] for BGP.
> -->
> 
> 
> 8) <!-- [rfced] How may we update this text for clarity?
> 
> Original:
>   For SRv6 SIDs corresponding to BGP EPE and when advertising SRv6 SID
>   using Direct Protocol-ID, none are defined currently and they MUST
>   be set to 0 when originated and ignored on receipt.
> 
> Perhaps: 
>   No flags are currently defined for SRv6 SIDs corresponding to BGP EPE
>   or for advertisement of a SRv6 SID using the Direct Protocol-ID. Flags MUST
>   be set to 0 when originated and ignored on receipt.
> -->
> 
> 
> 9) <!-- [rfced] We have updated "SET" to "set" at the end of this
> sentence. Please let us know any objections.
> 
> Original:
>   For SRv6 BGP EPE Peer Set SID,
>   multiple instances of this TLV (one for each peer in the "peer set")
>   are associated with the SRv6 SID and the S-Flag is SET.
> -->
> 
> 
> 10) <!-- [rfced] Section 9.2: FYI - We have updated the name of the registry in
> this section to "BGP-LS NLRI and Attribute TLVs" to match the title
> currently in the IANA registry (renamed per
> draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis). Depending on the response to our question #1,
> we will either use the name of the registry per RFC 7752 ("BGP-LS Node
> Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs") or
> the name per draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis ("BGP-LS NLRI and Attribute TLVs").
> 
> Link to registry: https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml#node-descriptor-link-descriptor-prefix-descriptor-attribute-tlv
> -->
> 
> 
> 11) <!-- [rfced] Please confirm that "set up to routers" is correct. Or should
> this be updated to "set up for routers" ("for" instead of "to")? Also, is
> the capitaliation of "Link-State" correct?
> 
> Original:
>   BGP peering sessions for
>   address-families other than Link-State may be set up to routers
>   outside the SR domain.
> -->
> 
> 
> 12) <!-- [rfced] Terminology
> 
> a) We note inconsistencies in the terms below throughout the text. Should
> either the closed or open form be used consistently? Or should "PeerSet" and
> "PeerNode" be used when followed by "SID", and then "Peer Set" and "Peer Node"
> be used elsewhere? We see "PeerSet SID" in RFCs 8402 and 9086, and we see
> "PeerNode SID" in RFC 9086.
> 
> PeerSet vs. Peer Set
> 
> PeerNode vs. Peer Node
> 
> 
> b) This relates to the question above. The name of the TLV defined in Section
> 7.2 is "SRv6 BGP Peer Node SID TLV". Should this be updated to "SRv6 BGP
> PeerNode SID TLV" (with "PeerNode" rather than "Peer Node")? If so, we will
> ask IANA to update the registry accordingly prior to publication.
> 
> Link to registry: https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml#srv6-bgp-epe-sid
> 
> 
> c) May we update the instance of "peer sessions" in this sentence to "peering
> sessions" to match usage elsewhere in the document?
> 
> Original:
>   ...therefore MAY be assigned to one or more
>   End.X SIDs associated with BGP peer sessions.
> 
> 
> d) FYI, we updated "SRv6 BGP EPE Peer Node SID TLV" to "SRv6 BGP Peer Node SID TLV"
> (no "EPE") for consistency with the name used elswhere in the document.
> 
> Original:
>   *  The BGP EPE Peer Node context for a PeerNode SID, and the Peer Set
>      context for a PeerSet SID [RFC8402] are advertised via the SRv6
>      BGP EPE Peer Node SID TLV (Section 7.2),
> 
> 
> e) FYI, we updated "OSPFv3 SRv6 LAN End.X sub-TLV" here to "OSPFv3
> SRv6 LAN End.X SID sub-TLV" (with "SID") to match usage in Section 9.2 of
> RFC-to-be 9513.
> 
> Original:
>   The information advertised via this TLV is derived from the IS-IS SRv6
>   LAN End.X SID sub-TLV (section 8.2 of
>   [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions]) or the OSPFv3 SRv6 LAN End.X
>   sub-TLV (section 9.2 of [I-D.ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions]) in the
>   case of IS-IS or OSPFv3 respectively.  
> -->
> 
> 
> 13) <!-- [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.
> -->
> 
> 
> 14) <!-- [rfced] FYI - Expansions for abbreviations have been added upon first use
> per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each
> expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness.
> -->
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> RFC Editor/mc/rv
> 
> 
> 
> On Oct 30, 2023, at 5:05 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> *****IMPORTANT*****
> 
> Updated 2023/10/30
> 
> 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/rfc9514.xml
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514.html
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514.pdf
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514.txt
> 
> Diff file of the text:
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514-diff.html
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
> 
> Alt-diff of the text (allows you to more easily view changes 
> where text has been deleted or moved): 
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514-alt-diff.html
> 
> Diff of the XML: 
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514-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/rfc9514.original.v2v3.xml 
> 
> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
> only: 
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514.form.xml
> 
> 
> Tracking progress
> -----------------
> 
> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9514
> 
> Please let us know if you have any questions.  
> 
> Thank you for your cooperation,
> 
> RFC Editor
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC9514 (draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-14)
> 
> Title            : BGP Link State Extensions for SRv6
> Author(s)        : G. Dawra, C. Filsfils, K. Talaulikar, M. Chen, D. Bernier, B. Decraene
> WG Chair(s)      : Susan Hares, Keyur Patel, Jeffrey Haas
> 
> Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
> 
> 
>