Re: [auth48] [Cluster447] AUTH48 Questions: RFC 9513 <draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-15> and RFC 9514 <draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-14>

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Madison,

Please check inline below.


On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 3:26 AM Madison Church <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Ketan,
>
> Thank you for reviewing these cluster-wide questions! We have some
> followups below.
>
> >> 1) Please review instances of "Locator" and "locator" (not prefaced with
> >> "SRv6"), and let us know if any updates are needed.
> >>
> >> Both documents use the capitalized form for "SRv6 Locator", "SRv6
> Locator
> >> LSA", and "SRv6 Locator TLV". Unless you indicate otherwise, we will
> leave these as is.
> >
> > KT> The existing usage looks good to me.
>
> To clarify, we see both “Locator” (capped) and “locator” (lowercase) used
> in the documents. Is one form preferred? Both documents use the capitalized
> form when prefaced with “SRv6”; that is, both use "SRv6 Locator”. However,
> when not prefaced with “SRv6”, the capitalization varies. Here are some
> examples:
>
> 9513:
>   Each locator is a covering
>   prefix for all SIDs provisioned on that router that have the matching
>   algorithm.
>
>   Forwarding entries for the locators advertised in ...
>
> 9514:
>   A node is provisioned with one or more Locators supported by that
>   node.
>
>   Each Locator is advertised as a BGP-LS Prefix NLRI
>   object along with the SRv6 Locator TLV in its BGP-LS Attribute.
>

KT> Perhaps we should just follow the convention from RFC 9352 which
capitalizes Locator only when referencing a TLV or when preceded with SRv6?


>
>
> >> 2) Please review instances of the following and let us know if any
> updates are needed. We see "Endpoint behavior" used in RFC 8986.
> >>
> >> endpoint behavior
> >> Endpoint behavior
> >> Endpoint Behavior
> >>
> >> Note: We will use the capitalized form "Endpoint Behavior" in the
> context of
> >> "Endpoint Behavior field" and "SRv6 Endpoint Behavior TLV" (defined in
> Section
> >> 7.1 of RFC-to-be 9514).
> >
> > KT> Agree
>
> To clarify, we see the following forms used in general text (not in
> context of "Endpoint Behavior field" and "SRv6 Endpoint Behavior TLV”):
>
> endpoint behavior
> Endpoint behavior
> Endpoint Behavior
>
> Is one of these forms preferred? Here are some examples:
>

KT> Here too, let us follow RFC9352 which is also more or less consistent
with RFC8986 - so "Endpoint behavior".

Thanks,
Ketan


>
> 9513:
>   The endpoint behavior code point
>   for this SRv6 SID as defined in [RFC8986].
>
>   The Maximum Segments Left MSD Type signals the maximum value of the
>   Segments Left field of the SRH of a received packet before applying
>   the Endpoint behavior associated with a SID.
>
>   The Maximum Segments Left MSD Type signals the maximum value of the
>   Segments Left field of the SRH of a received packet before applying
>   the Endpoint behavior associated with a SID.
>
> 9514:
>   The Endpoint Behavior code point
>   for this SRv6 SID as defined in Section 10.2 of [RFC8986].
>
>   *  The endpoint behavior of the SRv6 SID is advertised via the SRv6
>      Endpoint Behavior TLV (Section 7.1).
>
>   When advertising the SRv6 SIDs corresponding to the BGP EPE
>   functionality, the Endpoint Behavior corresponds to End.X and similar
>   behaviors.
>
> Thank you!
> RFC Editor/mc
>
> > On Nov 7, 2023, at 4:46 PM, Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Madison,
> >
> > Please check inline below for responses.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 8:47 PM Madison Church <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > We are forwarding the Cluster 447 email in case it was not received on
> your end when it was initially sent.
> >
> > Thank you!
> > RFC Editor/mc
> >
> >> Begin forwarded message:
> >>
> >> From: [e-mail]
> >> Subject: [Cluster447] AUTH48 Questions: RFC 9513
> <draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-15> and RFC 9514
> <draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-14>
> >> Date: October 30, 2023 at 7:15:34 PM CDT
> >> To: "[e-mail]"@gmail.com, [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], [e-mail],
> [e-mail]
> >>
> >> Hi authors,
> >>
> >> While reviewing this cluster of documents*, please reply to the
> questions
> >> below regarding consistency across the cluster. These questions are in
> >> addition to the document-specific questions sent for each RFC-to-be.
> Your
> >> reply will likely impact both documents in the cluster, so
> >> please discuss off-list as necessary, and then let us know how to
> >> proceed. Note - You have the option of updating the edited XML files
> yourself,
> >> if you prefer.  We will wait to hear from you before continuing with the
> >> publication process.
> >>
> >> * Cluster 447 (C447) currently in AUTH48 state:
> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9513.html
> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514.html
> >> (In addition, the .pdf, .txt, .xml, and diff files are available.)
> >>
> >> Note that RFCs 9259, 9350, 9351, and 9352 are also part of this cluster
> but have already been published.
> >>
> >> You may track the progress of all documents in this cluster through
> AUTH48 at:
> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C447
> >>
> >>
> >> 1) Please review instances of "Locator" and "locator" (not prefaced with
> >> "SRv6"), and let us know if any updates are needed.
> >>
> >> Both documents use the capitalized form for "SRv6 Locator", "SRv6
> Locator
> >> LSA", and "SRv6 Locator TLV". Unless you indicate otherwise, we will
> leave these as is.
> >
> > KT> The existing usage looks good to me.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Some notes:
> >>
> >> - RFC 9350 (already published in this cluster) uses the lowercase "SRv6
> >> locator" and "locator", except in the context of "SRv6 Locator prefix"
> and
> >> "SRv6 Locator TLV".
> >> - RFC 9352 (already published in this cluster) uses the capitalized
> "SRv6
> >> Locator", but the lowercase "locator" is used when not prefaced by
> "SRv6".
> >>
> >>
> >> 2) Please review instances of the following and let us know if any
> updates are needed. We see "Endpoint behavior" used in RFC 8986.
> >>
> >> endpoint behavior
> >> Endpoint behavior
> >> Endpoint Behavior
> >>
> >> Note: We will use the capitalized form "Endpoint Behavior" in the
> context of
> >> "Endpoint Behavior field" and "SRv6 Endpoint Behavior TLV" (defined in
> Section
> >> 7.1 of RFC-to-be 9514).
> >
> > KT> Agree
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ketan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >> RFC Editor/mc/rv
> >>
> >
>
>