Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9552 <draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-17> for your review

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alanna,

Thanks for the updates and please consider this email as my approval for
publication.

Thanks,
Ketan


On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 1:02 AM Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Ketan,
>
> Thank you for your reply.  We have updated as requested.
>
> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552.xml
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552.txt
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552.html
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552.pdf
>
> The relevant diff files have been posted here:
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552-auth48diff.html (AUTH48
> changes)
>
> Please review the document carefully and contact us with any further
> updates you may have.  Note that we do not make changes once a document is
> published as an RFC.
>
> We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status page
> below prior to moving this document forward in the publication process.
>
> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9552
>
> Thank you,
> RFC Editor/ap
>
> > On Dec 18, 2023, at 5:40 AM, Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Also, some additional comments/questions on the diff itself.
> >
> > 1) Sec 2.1 replaces "the IGP" with "IGP" - "the IGP" refers to either
> OSPF or ISIS. Just wondering if "the" is not really needed here? There are
> a few other similar usages in the rest of the document as well (5.2.2,
> 5.3.1.4, 5.3.2.1, 5.6).
> >
> > 2) Sec 4 there is a change from "max-aged" to "at the max age" - this
> change is inappropriate. We can perhaps replace "max-aged" with "aged out".
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ketan
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 6:50 PM Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Thanks for your help with this document. Please check inline below for
> responses.
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 7:45 AM <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Ketan,
> >
> > 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] In the sentence below, does "that requires CPU-intensive
> > or coordinated computations" refer to "Path Computation Element (CPE)"?
> >
> > Original:
> >    The IETF has defined the Path Computation Element (PCE) [RFC4655] as
> >    a mechanism for achieving the computation of end-to-end TE paths that
> >    cross the visibility of more than one TED or that requires CPU-
> >    intensive or coordinated computations.
> >
> > Perhaps:
> >    The IETF has defined the Path Computation Element (PCE) [RFC4655] as
> >    a mechanism for achieving the computation of end-to-end TE paths that
> >    cross the visibility of more than one TED. The PCE also requires CPU-
> >    intensive or coordinated computations.
> > -->
> >
> > KT> The original text is more appropriate. The "cross the visibility of
> more than one TED"  and "requires CPU-intensive or coordinated
> computations" are the two OR clauses referring to "the computation of
> end-to-end TE paths".
> >
> >
> >
> > 3) <!--[rfced] We do not see any mentions of "loose-hop-expansion" in
> > RFC 3209. We note that the document includes instances of "loose hop",
> > but there are no occurrences of "expansion". Please review and let us
> > know if the citation requires any updates.
> >
> > Original:
> >    Per-domain path
> >    computation uses a technique called "loose-hop-expansion" [RFC3209]
> >    and selects the exit ABR and other ABRs or AS Border Routers (ASBRs)
> >    using the IGP-computed shortest path topology for the remainder of
> >    the path.
> > -->
> >
> > KT> How about the following:
> > Per-domain path
> > computation selects the exit ABR and other ABRs or AS Border Routers
> (ASBRs)
> > as loose-hops [RFC3209] and using the IGP-computed shortest path
> topology for the
> > remainder of the path.
> >
> >
> >
> > 4) <!--[rfced] May we update the commas in this list as follows?
> >
> > Original:
> >    (2) a BGP
> >    path attribute (BGP-LS Attribute) that carries properties of the
> >    link, node, or prefix objects such as the link and prefix metric or
> >    auxiliary Router-IDs of nodes, etc.
> >
> > Perhaps:
> >    (2) a BGP
> >    path attribute (BGP-LS Attribute) that carries properties of the
> >    link, node, or prefix objects such as the link and prefix metric,
> >    auxiliary Router-IDs of nodes, etc.
> > -->
> >
> > KT> Yes
> >
> >
> >
> > 5) <!-- [rfced] Tables 3 and 18 have entries for the following:
> >
> >    513         | BGP-LS Identifier (deprecated)
> >
> > Should the entry be marked as deprecated in the IANA registry <
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml#node-descriptor-link-descriptor-prefix-descriptor-attribute-tlv>?
>
> > -->
> >
> > KT> Yes
> >
> >
> >
> > 6) <!--[rfced] The sentences below read awkwardly with "direct or
> static".
> > Please review and let us know if/how they may be updated.
> >
> > Original:
> >    This is a mandatory TLV when
> >    originating information from IS-IS, OSPF, direct or static.
> >    ...
> >    When the node is running an IGP protocol,
> >    an implementation MAY choose to use the IGP Router-ID for direct
> >    or static.
> >
> > Perhaps:
> >    This is a mandatory TLV when
> >    originating information from IS-IS, OSPF, 'Direct', or 'Static
> >    configuration'.
> >    ...
> >    When the node is running an IGP protocol,
> >    an implementation MAY choose to use the IGP Router-ID for 'Direct'
> >    or 'Static configuration'.
> > -->
> >
> > KT> Looks better indeed.
> >
> >
> >
> > 7) <!-- [rfced] There is a slight difference between the sections
> > referenced in Tables 5 and 18.  The reference in the IANA registry
> matches
> > what appears in Table 18.  Should the section references be updated for
> > consistency?  Perhaps they should match what appears Table 5?
> >
> > Table 5 (Section 5.2.3):
> >    |      264       | OSPF Route Type           |    1     | Section   |
> >    |                |                           |          | 5.2.3.1   |
> >    |      265       | IP Reachability           | variable | Section   |
> >    |                | Information               |          | 5.2.3.2   |
> >
> >
> > Table 18 (Section 9):
> >      |      264       | OSPF Route Type         | Section 5.2.3     |
> >      |      265       | IP Reachability         | Section 5.2.3     |
> >      |                | Information             |                   |
> > -->
> >
> > KT> Good catch. Table 5 is indeed correct and the others have wrong
> section references for these TLVs.
> >
> >
> >
> > 8) <!--[rfced] We note that Figure 13 includes a field called "Route
> > Type". Should "OSPF" be removed from this text that precedes Figure 13?
> >
> > Original:
> >    The OSPF Route Type field follows the route types defined in the OSPF
> >    protocol and can be one of the following:
> >
> > Perhaps:
> >    The Route Type field follows the route types defined in the OSPF
> >    protocol and can be one of the following:
> > -->
> >
> > KT> We could not fit "OSPF Route Type" in that figure with the 8-bit
> width and hence it was abbreviated to "Route Type". We can use "Route Type"
> in the text as well to be consistent.
> >
> >
> >
> > 9) <!-- [rfced] The following appears in Table 7:
> >
> >    | 'T' | Attached Bit | [ISO10589] |
> >
> > The following appears in Table 14:
> >
> >    |  1  | Attached Bit (A-bit) |  RFC 9552 |
> >
> > Should Table 7 be updated to reflect 'A' in the Bit column?
> > -->
> >
> > KT> Yes
> >
> >
> >
> > 10) <!--[rfced] To parallel the fields of other figures, should "Opaque
> > node attributes" and "Opaque link attributes" be capitalized in
> > Figures 18 and 23, respectively?
> >
> > Original:
> >      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >      //               Opaque node attributes (variable)             //
> >      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >
> >                   Figure 18: Opaque Node Attribute Format
> >
> >
> >      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >      //                Opaque link attributes (variable)            //
> >      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >
> >                 Figure 23: Opaque Link Attribute TLV Format
> > -->
> >
> > KT> Yes
> >
> >
> >
> > 11) <!--[rfced] Should the parentheses around "SRLG" proceeding "IPv4"
> > be removed to parallel "SRLG" proceeding "IPv6"?
> >
> > Original:
> >    In IS-IS, the SRLG
> >    information is carried in two different TLVs: the IPv4 (SRLG) TLV
> >    (Type 138) defined in [RFC5307] and the IPv6 SRLG TLV (Type 139)
> >    defined in [RFC6119].
> >
> > Perhaps:
> >    In IS-IS, the SRLG
> >    information is carried in two different TLVs: the IPv4 SRLG TLV
> >    (Type 138) defined in [RFC5307] and the IPv6 SRLG TLV (Type 139)
> >    defined in [RFC6119].
> > -->
> >
> > KT> Actually these are the GMPLS-SRLG TLV (for IPv4) (Type 138) defined
> in [RFC5307] and the IPv6 SRLG TLV (Type 139) defined in [RFC6119].
> >
> >
> >
> > 12) <!--[rfced] We note that the "local address" bit listed in RFC 5340
> > lists the bit value as "LA-bit". Should "L" (Table 11) be updated to
> "LA-bit"?
> > -->
> >
> > KT> Not needed. We can keep as is since they are separate protocols
> (BGP-LS and OSPF) and this is a bis RFC.
> >
> >
> >
> > 13) <!--[rfced] May we update instances of "Extened IGP Route Tag" to be
> > "IGP Extened Route Tag" to reflect the defined code point in IANA's
> > "BGP-LS NLRI and Attribute TLVs" registry? If yes, these updates will
> > be made in Section 5.3.3.3.
> > -->
> >
> > KT> Yes.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 14) <!--[rfced] May we update the sentence below to improve readability?
> >
> > Original:
> >    An originating router shall use this TLV for encoding information
> >    specific to the protocol advertised in the NLRI header Protocol-ID
> >    field or new protocol extensions to the protocol as advertised in the
> >    NLRI header Protocol-ID field for which there is no protocol-neutral
> >    representation in the BGP Link-State NLRI.
> >
> > Perhaps:
> >    An originating router shall use this TLV for encoding information
> >    specific to the protocol advertised in the NLRI header Protocol-ID
> >    field or it shall use new protocol extensions for the protocol as
> >    advertised in the NLRI header Protocol-ID field for which there is no
> >    protocol-neutral representation in the BGP Link-State NLRI.
> > -->
> >
> > KT> Yes
> >
> >
> >
> > 15) <!--[rfced] FYI, we've updated "E-AS-External-Prefix-LSA" to
> > "E-AS-External-LSA" to match what appears in Section 4.5 of RFC 8362.
> > Please let us know of any concerns.
> >
> > Original:
> >    In the case of OSPFv3, this
> >    TLV MUST NOT be used to advertise TLVs other than those in the OSPFv3
> >    E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA, E-Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA, E-AS-External-
> >    Prefix-LSA, and E-NSSA-LSA [RFC8362].
> >
> > Current:
> >    In the case of OSPFv3, this
> >    TLV MUST NOT be used to advertise TLVs other than those in the OSPFv3
> >    E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA, E-Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA, E-AS-External-LSA,
> >    and E-NSSA-LSA [RFC8362].
> > -->
> >
> > KT> Yes
> >
> >
> >
> > 16) <!--[rfced] May we update this sentence as follows for clarity?
> >
> > Original:
> >    Consider a point-to-point link between two routers, A and B, that
> >    initially were OSPFv2-only routers and then IS-IS is enabled on them.
> >
> > Perhaps:
> >    Consider a point-to-point link between two routers, A and B, which
> >    initially were OSPFv2-only routers and then had IS-IS enabled on them.
> > -->
> >
> > KT> Yes
> >
> >
> >
> > 17) <!-- [rfced] Terminology
> >
> > a) Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used
> > inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how
> they
> > may be made consistent.
> >
> > Broadcast LAN / broadcast LAN
> > Multi-Topology ID / Multi-Topology Identifier
> > Node Name / node name
> > Route Reflector / route reflector
> >
> > KT> The 2nd one (on the right) for all of the above
> >
> >
> > b) To parallel RFC 7752, may we update the following terms to the ones
> > listed on the left.
> >
> > link-local IPv6 address / IPv6 link-local address
> > path attribute length / Path Attribute Length
> >
> > KT> The 2nd ones (on the right) are more appropriate
> >
> >
> > c) FYI, we made the following terms capitalized for consistency to
> parallel
> > other BGP terminology. Please review and let us know if further updates
> > are necessary.
> >
> > BGP Attribute
> > BGP Decision Process
> > BGP Next-Hop
> >  -> does this always refer to the attribute?
> >
> > KT> Only in sec 5.5 where it correct to capitalize it.
> >
> > BGP Speaker
> >
> > BGP-LS Attribute
> > BGP-LS Speaker
> > -->
> >
> > KT> Yes
> >
> >
> >
> > 18) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for the following
> > abbreviations per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please
> > review each expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness.
> >
> > Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA)
> > Provider Edge (PE)
> > RSVP - Fast Reroute (RSVP-FRR)
> > -->
> >
> > KT> Yes
> >
> >
> >
> > 19) <!-- [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.
> > -->
> >
> > KT> Ack
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ketan
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > RFC Editor
> >
> > On Dec 15, 2023, at 6:10 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> >
> > *****IMPORTANT*****
> >
> > Updated 2023/12/15
> >
> > 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/rfc9552.xml
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552.html
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552.pdf
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552.txt
> >
> > Diff file of the text:
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552-diff.html
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552-rfcdiff.html (side by
> side)
> >
> > Diff of the XML:
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552-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/rfc9552.original.v2v3.xml
> >
> > XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
> > only:
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552.form.xml
> >
> >
> > Tracking progress
> > -----------------
> >
> > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9552
> >
> > Please let us know if you have any questions.
> >
> > Thank you for your cooperation,
> >
> > RFC Editor
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > RFC9552 (draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-17)
> >
> > Title            : Distribution of Link-State and Traffic Engineering
> Information Using BGP
> > Author(s)        : K. Talaulikar, Ed.
> > WG Chair(s)      : Susan Hares, Keyur Patel, Jeffrey Haas
> >
> > Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
> >
> >
>
>