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

[Madison Church <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ketan,

Thank you for the clarification! We have made updates to RFC 9513 and RFC 9514 accordingly.

Thank you,
RFC Editor/mc

> On Nov 17, 2023, at 7:33 AM, Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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
> >> 
> > 
>