Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9352 <draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-19> for your review

[Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>]

Hi Peter, Co-Authors, 

See one inline. 

> On Jan 27, 2023, at 6:01 AM, Peter Psenak <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> thanks for the changes, please see my responses inline (##PP):
> 
> On 26/01/2023 22:34, [e-mail] wrote:
>> Authors,
>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>> 1) <!--[rfced] The title of the document has been updated as follows
>> (note that we updated "Dataplane" to "Data Plane" for consistency
>> and to match use in RFC 9350).  Please review.
>> Original:
>>    IS-IS Extensions to Support Segment Routing over IPv6 Dataplane
>> Current:
>>    IS-IS Extensions to Support Segment Routing over the IPv6 Data Plane
>> -->
> 
> ##PP
> Ack
>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
>> 3) <!--[rfced] We notice "router capabilities TLV" vs. "Router
>> Capabilities TLV", so we updated as "Router Capability TLV" to
>> match use in RFC 9350. However, we also note that RFC 7981 only
>> uses "IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV". Should the instances of
>> "Router Capability TLV" perhaps be updated to reflect use in
>> RFC 7981, or is the current text below okay as is?
> 
> ##PP
> "Router Capability TLV" is good.
> 
>> Current:
>>    A node indicates that it supports the SR Segment Endpoint
>>    Node functionality as specified in [RFC8754] by advertising
>>    a new SRv6 Capabilities sub-TLV of the Router Capability
>>    TLV [RFC7981].
>> Current:
>>    [RFC8491] defines the means to advertise node-/link-specific
>>    values for MSDs of various types. Node MSDs are advertised in
>>    a sub-TLV of the Router Capability TLV [RFC7981].
>> -->
> 
> ##PP
> Ack
>> 4) <!--[rfced] FYI: For the second figure in Section 2, the alignment of
>> the bit ruler has been corrected.
>> -->
> 
> ##PP
> thanks
>> 5) <!--[rfced] Since "algorithm(s)" is read as singular, we updated the
>> text as follows. Please let us know of any concerns.
>> Original:
>>    An SRv6 capable router indicates supported algorithm(s)
>>    by advertising the Segment Routing Algorithm sub-TLV as
>>    defined in [RFC8667].
>> Current:
>>    An SRv6-capable router indicates one or more supported
>>    algorithms by advertising the Segment Routing Algorithm
>>    sub-TLV, as defined in [RFC8667].
>> -->
> 
> ##PP
> Ack
>> 6) <!--[rfced] We note that "D-flag" is not described in RFC 5305. Is an
>> updated needed, or does "D-flag" perhaps refer to the "up/down
>> bit" in RFC 5305?
> 
> ##PP
> referring to it as "up/down bit" in RFC 5305 is fine. But keep the name of the bit as D-flag.

The current reference is RFC 9352 which hasn’t published yet and isn’t included in the
Normative References. We need the correct reference for this flag or we need to fully
specify its semantics in this draft. It seems that since the locators are new for SRv6, it would
make sense to specify it here rather than introduce this confusion with RFC 5305. 

Thanks,
Acee  



> 
>> Original:
>>    D-flag: Same as described in section 4.1. of [RFC5305].
>> -->
>> 7) <!--[rfced] Since Table 1 (Section 10) is the only table without a
>> title, would you like to add one - perhaps "Endpoint Behaviors"
>> or other?
> 
> ##PP
> yes, "Endpoint Behaviors" is fine.
> 
>> -->
>> 8) <!--[rfced] We have included some specific questions about the IANA
>> text below. In addition to responding to those questions, please
>> review all of the IANA-related updates carefully and let us know
>> if any further updates are needed.
> 
> ##PP
> I feel the first paragraph in section 11.1.1 should be moved to section 11.1 as it is related to SRv6 Locator TLV, not the SRv6 End SID Sub-TLV.
> 
> Section 11.4, for type 43 in description it says "SRv6 End.X SI", please update to "SRv6 End.X SID"
> 
>> 1) FYI: IANA has indicated that the authors approved removing "TLV"
>> from the names/descriptions.  Given this, we have removed "TLV" below
>> (which now matches the "IS-IS Top-Level TLV Codepoints" registry at
>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/).
>> Original:
>>    Type | Description      | IIH | LSP | SNP | Purge
>>    27   | SRv6 Locator TLV | n   | y   |n    | n
>> Current:
>>    Value | Name            | IIH | LSP | SNP | Purge
>>    27    | SRv6 Locator    | n   | y   |n    | n
> 
> ##PP
> Ack
> 
>> 2) Section 11.1.2. In Table 4, should the "Description" column be added
>> for clarity? Also, should only column 27 be included since that is the
>> only new information being added (i.e., should columns 135, 235, 236,
>> and 237 be deleted)?
>> -->
> 
> ##PP
> - I'm fine adding the "Description" column
> - in terms of only including the column 27, I feel it is easier to understand if we include the whole table.
> 
>> 9) <!-- [rfced] 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.
>> - SRv6 Capability sub-TLV vs. SRv6 Capabilities sub-TLV
>>     Note:
>>     Are these terms different? We notice that Section 11.3
>>     refers to "the SRv6 Capability sub-TLV specified in this
>>     document (Section 2)", and Section 11.8 refers to
>>     "the IS-IS SRv6 Capabilities sub-TLV specified in this
>>     document (Section 2)". However, Section 2 refers to the
>>     "SRv6 Capabilities sub-TLV". Please let us know how we
>>     may update this for consistency.
> 
> it is the same thing, please use "SRv6 Capabilities sub-TLV" everywhere
> 
>> - sub-TLV vs. Sub-TLV
>> - sub-sub-TLV vs. Sub-sub-TLV vs. Sub-Sub-TLV
>>     Note: To match RFCs 9350 and 9351, we will make "sub-TLV" and
>>     "sub-sub-TLV" lowercase in the text, and they will be capitalized
>>     in section titles and registry names.  Please let us know of any
>>     concerns before we proceed with the updates as appropriate.
>> -->
> ##PP
> Ack
> 
>> 10) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online
>> Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
>> and let us know if any changes are needed.
>> For example, please consider whether "black-holed" should be updated.
> 
> ##PP
> please replace the "black-holed" with "dropped"
> 
> 
> thanks,
> Peter
> 
>> -->
>> Thank you.
>> RFC Editor/ap/kc
>> On Jan 26, 2023, at 1:32 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>> Updated 2023/01/26
>> 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/rfc9352.xml
>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9352.html
>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9352.pdf
>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9352.txt
>> Diff file of the text:
>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9352-diff.html
>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9352-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>> Diff of the XML:
>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9352-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/rfc9352.original.v2v3.xml
>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
>> only:
>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9352.form.xml
>> Tracking progress
>> -----------------
>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9352
>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>> RFC Editor
>> --------------------------------------
>> RFC9352 (draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-19)
>> Title            : IS-IS Extensions to Support Segment Routing over IPv6 Dataplane
>> Author(s)        : P. Psenak, Ed., C. Filsfils, A. Bashandy, B. Decraene, Z. Hu
>> WG Chair(s)      : Acee Lindem, Christian Hopps
>> Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
>