Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920bis-06> for your review
Acee Lindem <acee.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 28 September 2023 20:34 UTC
Return-Path: <acee.ietf@gmail.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 BF4FDC131C73; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 13:34:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.104
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.104 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 oI2qF1SHp5Aw; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 13:34:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x735.google.com (mail-qk1-x735.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::735]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 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 E7803C131C6C; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 13:34:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x735.google.com with SMTP id af79cd13be357-77428e40f71so650131085a.1; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 13:34:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1695933245; x=1696538045; darn=rfc-editor.org; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=28Vw6SpIX10nr+3fv+ATC4LrlVeRSCMuRcQz+Z/UJ2I=; b=URokm1Ghj+W9uEHX+Uok/8MCGNfNQJWvICYYGY0uIwZK3jRzVvgyMVva6Rzp+bntBP OgDtPg+1gVAaSCgMPTcR/5sy2M500jwL/mtb/aGv+TcAZnCFTe4VwHNBojDNuxp1dY/n Yk+IXgwJi34UGg7O7NBfsdwsDeOcYkJRX2dlkn+p+m1Ox+R5yg9Lokzo1ZX77MsGYpc3 9MrL3b/2mL3Kzu/WC855aPg6OPdcY9VbsEMWgoV9Cw5Pk5Namk/Ab3wZ9gk7SUMYJqFc mpZVM3CHCG74n2SCo7cCcXASVHJizO0xg8g8BUsqcMm0KU0bvJsWCiB0JSZ3BA1m0oUq zc/Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1695933245; x=1696538045; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=28Vw6SpIX10nr+3fv+ATC4LrlVeRSCMuRcQz+Z/UJ2I=; b=iWa9tV33qIVIfR9/zDFpNiFYh6O05nObhmp5Ju/kIUaeSxOiwG58NEdoY7usj2WoNM oV5Weu/hg33jjSgB2TFwaZGFXLz02K+wCNhLaap6X/UyQI5dfRjfiFSP/GEgQ816XT0y bgVfiTh8kmF7de78EE3A8i9wEdhANgqPYvOCLV4BCPmeO/55iUQ4LCj0JsFw6m1LVNEG UBkwTrjZWjVSdEznyrvkzXYE4lK7B7E8i0OrlYE+15IOcllGGEd9gCZ7bFLsWqSYQE71 dVuFqGEa+aByMD6vzg6E+XpVdFvjsKpLQFabPQ5Vk90IibFZB8u5q8MgrPk4DA1kqTfk t7tA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Ywu2P9tNeewWP4Lwd6JDIIrCGC3HoIP+Gvk7LBORQvYO85hqjmQ WpPpMFElg3m//gYTQ1NK0Ms=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IG4oRsOZldoH1KNIy7xIU0Bmnl/l+dzXwsdq6ptqH4tuY4v3g6WDRyxWRA+mUMHfWjNzOWd8w==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:4625:b0:767:f49c:1d67 with SMTP id br37-20020a05620a462500b00767f49c1d67mr2779770qkb.1.1695933245449; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 13:34:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([2605:a601:91b1:ca00:5d4b:a0cc:9b1f:e903]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id dy52-20020a05620a60f400b007678973eaa1sm6438222qkb.127.2023.09.28.13.34.04 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 28 Sep 2023 13:34:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Acee Lindem <acee.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <B035DD7D-F0A5-4372-83FE-EE43EBD85B29@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2CB64230-F96A-463B-94A8-81F399B34844"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.700.6\))
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 16:33:54 -0400
In-Reply-To: <60414D28-C438-4502-B114-3C0223A8E894@amsl.com>
Cc: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>, "wim.henderickx@nokia.com" <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>, "jefftant.ietf@gmail.com" <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, "rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, "lsr-ads@ietf.org" <lsr-ads@ietf.org>, "lsr-chairs@ietf.org" <lsr-chairs@ietf.org>, "chopps@chopps.org" <chopps@chopps.org>, "jgs@juniper.net" <jgs@juniper.net>, "auth48archive@rfc-editor.org" <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
To: Madison Church <mchurch@amsl.com>
References: <20230919005146.DB8FAD844F@rfcpa.amsl.com> <BY5PR11MB4337EA2383AF85691B0EEB46C1C3A@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <60414D28-C438-4502-B114-3C0223A8E894@amsl.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.700.6)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/ObCTVUMSZNkOWkzlSAXizmwWS_o>
Subject: Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8920bis-06> 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: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 20:34:10 -0000
Hi Madison, Actually, I spoke too soon and have some changes. I removed “new” in a few places where it was redundant. I also updated contact information and included a couple readability improvements. *** rfc9492.txt.orig Thu Sep 28 15:47:08 2023 --- rfc9492.txt Thu Sep 28 16:27:18 2023 *************** *** 27,33 **** attributes, the current advertisements do not support application- specific values for a given attribute, nor do they support indication of which applications are using the advertised value for a given ! link. This document introduces new link attribute advertisements in OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 that address both of these shortcomings. This document obsoletes RFC 8920. --- 27,33 ---- attributes, the current advertisements do not support application- specific values for a given attribute, nor do they support indication of which applications are using the advertised value for a given ! link. This document introduces link attribute advertisements in OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 that address both of these shortcomings. This document obsoletes RFC 8920. *************** *** 134,140 **** the router that is an RSVP-TE head end sees the link attribute being advertised for that link, it assumes RSVP-TE is enabled on that link, even though it is not. If such an RSVP-TE head-end router tries to ! set up an RSVP-TE path via that link, it will result in the path ! setup failure. An additional issue arises in cases where both applications are --- 134,140 ---- the router that is an RSVP-TE head end sees the link attribute being advertised for that link, it assumes RSVP-TE is enabled on that link, even though it is not. If such an RSVP-TE head-end router tries to ! set up an RSVP-TE path via that link, it will result in a setup ! failure for the path. An additional issue arises in cases where both applications are *************** *** 263,269 **** 5. Advertisement of Application-Specific Values To allow advertisement of the application-specific values of the link ! attribute, a new Application-Specific Link Attributes (ASLA) sub-TLV is defined. The ASLA sub-TLV is a sub-TLV of the OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV [RFC7684] and OSPFv3 Router-Link TLV [RFC8362]. --- 263,269 ---- 5. Advertisement of Application-Specific Values To allow advertisement of the application-specific values of the link ! attribute, an Application-Specific Link Attributes (ASLA) sub-TLV is defined. The ASLA sub-TLV is a sub-TLV of the OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV [RFC7684] and OSPFv3 Router-Link TLV [RFC8362]. *************** *** 299,305 **** +- -+ | ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ! | Link Attribute sub-sub-TLVs | +- -+ | ... | --- 299,305 ---- +- -+ | ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ! | Link Attribute sub-TLVs | +- -+ | ... | *************** *** 373,379 **** previously defined link attributes can be kept and reused when advertising them in the ASLA sub-TLV. ! If the same attribute is advertised in more than one ASLA sub-TLVs with the application listed in the Application Identifier Bit Masks, the application SHOULD use the first instance of advertisement and ignore any subsequent advertisements of that attribute. --- 373,379 ---- previously defined link attributes can be kept and reused when advertising them in the ASLA sub-TLV. ! If the same attribute is advertised in more than one ASLA sub-TLV with the application listed in the Application Identifier Bit Masks, the application SHOULD use the first instance of advertisement and ignore any subsequent advertisements of that attribute. *************** *** 778,784 **** limited to prevent a denial-of-service (DoS) attack (distributed or otherwise) from overloading the OSPF control plane. ! This document defines a new way to advertise link attributes. Tampering with the information defined in this document may have an effect on applications using it, including impacting TE, which uses various link attributes for its path computation. This is similar in --- 778,784 ---- limited to prevent a denial-of-service (DoS) attack (distributed or otherwise) from overloading the OSPF control plane. ! This document defines an improved way to advertise link attributes. Tampering with the information defined in this document may have an effect on applications using it, including impacting TE, which uses various link attributes for its path computation. This is similar in *************** *** 795,801 **** * the "OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs" registry ! The new values defined in this document have been allocated using the IETF Review procedure as described in [RFC8126]. 14.1. OSPFv2 --- 795,801 ---- * the "OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs" registry ! The values defined in this document have been allocated using the IETF Review procedure as described in [RFC8126]. 14.1. OSPFv2 *************** *** 889,895 **** advertisements MUST be used and the specific conditions under which they MUST NOT be used. ! A new subsection discussing the use of zero-length Application Identifier Bit Masks has been added for greater consistency with [RFC9479]. See Section 12.2. --- 889,895 ---- advertisements MUST be used and the specific conditions under which they MUST NOT be used. ! A subsection discussing the use of zero-length Application Identifier Bit Masks has been added for greater consistency with [RFC9479]. See Section 12.2. *************** *** 1026,1038 **** should be considered as coauthors: Acee Lindem ! Cisco Systems United States of America ! Email: acee@cisco.com Ketan Talaulikar ! Arrcus, Inc. India Email: ketant.ietf@gmail.com --- 1026,1038 ---- should be considered as coauthors: Acee Lindem ! LabN Consulting, L.L.C. United States of America ! Email: acee.ietf@gmail.com Ketan Talaulikar ! Cisco Systems India Email: ketant.ietf@gmail.com <mailto:ketant.ietf@gmail.com> Thanks, Acee > On Sep 27, 2023, at 5:14 PM, Madison Church <mchurch@amsl.com> wrote: > > Hi Les, > > Thank you for your reply! We have updated the document per your responses. We have a few followup questions/comments. > > 1) Regarding this requested change: > >> 1)Section 5 >> >> "Standard Application Identifier Bit Mask: Optional set of bits, >> where each bit represents a single standard application. Bits are >> defined in the "Link Attribute Application Identifiers" registry, >> which is defined in [RFC8919]." >> >> The reference should be updated to be the new RFC9479. > > We have updated instances of [RFC8919] to [RFC9479]. Note that RFC-to-be 9479 is in AUTH48; we will publish this document at the same time as RFC-to-be 9479. > > > 2) Regarding this requested change: > >> 2)Section 5 >> >> "Bit 1 (S-bit): Segment Routing Policy. This is data plane >> independent." >> >> This format does not match the same text in RFC9479(to be) which is currently shown as: >> >> " S-bit: Set to specify SR Policy (this is data plane independent)." >> >> My personal preference is to keep the parentheses. > > We have updated the S-bit definition as you suggest above to keep the parentheses; as you note, this matches the format in RFC-to-be 9479. Would you also like to use parentheses for the F-bit definition to match RFC 9479? > > Current in this document: > Bit 2 (F-bit): LFA. Includes all LFA types. > > Current in RFC 9479: > F-bit: Set to specify an LFA (includes all LFA types). > > > 3) Regarding Question 7: > >> 7) <!-- [rfced] The following expansions are defined more than once >> throughout the >> document. May we use the abbreviated form for the following expansions >> upon >> first use per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide")? >> >> Loop-Free Alternates (LFAs) >> Standard Application Bit Mask (SABM) >> Segment Routing (SR) >> traffic engineering (TE) >> User Defined Application Bit Mask (UDABM) --> > > Within the definition list in Section 5, we left the expanded forms of “Standard Application Identifier Bit Mask” and “User-Defined Application Identifier Bit Mask” as is to match the field names in the figure directly above. If you prefer to use the abbreviated forms in the definition list, please let us know. Also, would it be correct to add “field” to the following entries for clarity as shown below? > > Original: > SABM Length: Standard Application Identifier Bit Mask Length in octets. > > UDABM Length: User-Defined Application Identifier Bit Mask Length in > octets. > > Perhaps: > SABM Length: Length of the Standard Application Identifier Bit Mask field in > octets. > > UDABM Length: Length of the User-Defined Application Identifier Bit Mask > field in octets. > > > Updated XML file: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9492.xml > > Updated output files: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9492.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9492.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9492.html > > Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9492-auth48diff.html > > Diff files showing all changes: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9492-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9492-rfcdiff.html (side-by-side diff) > > Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the most recent version. > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9492 > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/mc > >
- [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-lsr-r… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-l… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-l… Madison Church
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-l… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-l… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-l… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-l… Madison Church
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-l… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-l… Madison Church
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-l… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-l… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-l… Wim Henderickx (Nokia)
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-l… Acee Lindem
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-l… John E Drake
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-l… Madison Church
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-l… Acee Lindem
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-l… Acee Lindem
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-l… Peter Psenak
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-l… Madison Church
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9492 <draft-ietf-l… Rebecca VanRheenen