Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9488 <draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-11> for your review

[Rebecca VanRheenen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mustapha,

Thank you for your reply. We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9488).

Once we receive approval from Siva, we will move this document forward in the publication process.

Sincerely,
RFC Editor/rv


> On Oct 5, 2023, at 12:31 PM, Mustapha Aissaoui (Nokia) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I approve this document for publication.
>  
> Regards,
> Mustapha.
>  
> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Date: Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 5:03 PM
> To: Andrew Stone (Nokia) <[e-mail]>, Mustapha Aissaoui (Nokia) <[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]>, [e-mail]<[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9488 <draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-11> for your review
> 
> 
> CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information.
> 
> 
> 
> Authors,
> 
> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
> 
> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please note that the title of the document has been updated as
> follows. We expanded the abbreviation "PCEP" per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322
> ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review.
> 
> Original:
>   Local Protection Enforcement in PCEP
> 
> Current:
>   Local Protection Enforcement in the Path Computation Element
>   Communication Protocol (PCEP)
> 
> Note that we also updated the abbreviated title (only appears in the running
> header of the pdf output) to match the document title as there was space.
> 
> Original:
>   Protection Enforcement
> 
> Current:
>   Local Protection Enforcement in PCEP
> -->
> 
> 
> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the
> title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
> 
> 
> 3) <!-- [rfced] For this sentence in the Abstract, is "protection strictness"
> okay, or would "protection enforcement" (like in the document title) be
> better?
> 
> Original:
>    This document also introduces a new flag for
>    signalling protection strictness in PCEP.
> -->
> 
> 
> 4) <!-- [rfced] Please review "define enforcement, or strictness of the
> protection requirement" here. Would it be helpful to update to either
> "define the enforcement of the protection requirement" or "define the
> strictness of the protection enforcement requirement"?
> 
> Original:
>    It is desirable for an operator to be able to define the enforcement,
>    or strictness of the protection requirement.
> 
> Perhaps:
>    It is desirable for an operator to be able to define the enforcement
>    of the protection requirement.
> 
> Or:
>    It is desirable for an operator to be able to define the strictness
>    of the protection enforcement requirement.
> -->
> 
> 
> 5) <!-- [rfced] Will readers understand what is meant by "reference notes"? Also,
> we revised "is path setup type and data plane technology agnostic" as
> follows to improve readability.
> 
> Original:
>    The document contains reference notes for Segment Routing, however
>    the content described is path setup type and data plane technology
>    agnostic.
> 
> Current:
>    The document contains reference notes for Segment Routing; however,
>    the content described is agnostic in regard to path setup type and
>    data plane technology.
> -->
> 
> 
> 6) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble understanding how the last part of this
> sentence (i.e., "and the use case...") connects with the first
> part. Also, would a citation be helpful for "RSVP"?
> 
> Original:
>    The name of the flag uses the term "Desired", which by
>    definition means "strongly wished for or intended" and the use case
>    originated from the RSVP.
> 
> Perhaps:
>    The name of the flag uses the term "Desired", which by
>    definition means "strongly wished for or intended". The use case
>    for this flag originated in RSVP.
> -->
> 
> 
> 7) <!-- [rfced] May we update "Implementations of [RFC5440]" as follows for
> clarity?
> 
> Original:
>    Implementations of [RFC5440] have either interpreted the L flag as
>    PROTECTION MANDATORY or PROTECTION PREFERRED, leading to operational
>    differences.
> 
> Perhaps:
>    Implementations that use PCEP [RFC5440] have interpreted the L flag as
>    either PROTECTION MANDATORY or PROTECTION PREFERRED, leading to operational
>    differences.
> -->
> 
> 
> 8) <!-- [rfced] Should "service agreement definitions" here read "Service Level
> Agreement definitions" or "SLA definitions"? Or is the current correct?
> 
> Original:
>    A network may be providing transit to
>    multiple service agreement definitions against the same base topology
>    network, whose behavior could vary, such as wanting local protection
>    to be invoked on some LSPs and not wanting local protection on
>    others.
> -->
> 
> 
> 9) <!-- [rfced] Please review "The boolean bit L flag". Would one of the
> following options improve clarity and readability?
> 
> Original:
>    The boolean bit L flag is unable to distinguish between the different
>    options of PROTECTION MANDATORY, UNPROTECTED MANDATORY, PROTECTION
>    PREFERRED and UNPROTECTED PREFERRED.
> 
> Perhaps:
>    The L flag is a boolean bit and thus unable to distinguish between the different
>    options of PROTECTION MANDATORY, UNPROTECTED MANDATORY, PROTECTION
>    PREFERRED and UNPROTECTED PREFERRED.
> 
> Or:
>    Because it is a boolean bit, the L flag is unable to distinguish between the different
>    options of PROTECTION MANDATORY, UNPROTECTED MANDATORY, PROTECTION
>    PREFERRED, and UNPROTECTED PREFERRED.
> -->
> 
> 
> 10) <!-- [rfced] Two consecutive paragraphs in Section 4.2 begin with "For
> example". Is "For example" needed here? Or should the second one be
> updated to something like "As another example"? Please review.
> 
> Also, in the second paragraph below, we updated "is when an operator" to "is
> for use cases in which an operator" for clarity and for consistency with the
> previous paragraph. Please review.
> 
> Original:
>    For example, PROTECTION MANDATORY is for use cases where an operator
>    may need the LSP to follow a path which has local protection provided
>    along the full path, ensuring that if there is a failure anywhere
>    along the path that traffic will be fast re-routed at the point.
> 
>    For example, UNPROTECTED MANDATORY is when an operator may
>    intentionally prefer an LSP to not be locally protected, and thus
>    would rather local failures cause the LSP to go down. ...
> 
> Perhaps:
>    PROTECTION MANDATORY is for use cases in which an operator
>    may need the LSP to follow a path that has local protection provided
>    along the full path, ensuring that if there is a failure anywhere
>    along the path that traffic will be fast re-routed at the point.
> 
>    UNPROTECTED MANDATORY is for use cases in which an operator may
>    intentionally prefer an LSP to not be locally protected and thus
>    would rather local failures cause the LSP to go down.
> -->
> 
> 
> 11) <!-- [rfced] Please review "protected with path protection" here. Would
> updating to just "protected" retain the intended meaning?
> 
> Original:
>    An example
>    scenario is one where an LSP is protected with path protection via a
>    secondary diverse LSP.
> 
> Perhaps:
>    An example
>    scenario is one where an LSP is protected via a secondary diverse LSP.
> -->
> 
> 
> 12) <!-- [rfced] In Table 1, would it be helpful to list bit 6 first and then bit 7
> (matches IANA registry)? Or do you prefer the current (matches order mentioned in
> text before table)?
> -->
> 
> 
> 13) <!-- [rfced] We updated this sentence as follows to more accurately describe
> the figure. Please let us know any objections.
> 
> Original:
>    The format of the LSPA Object as defined in [RFC5440] is:
> 
> Current:
>    The following shows the format of the LSPA object as defined in
>    [RFC5440] with the addition of the E flag defined in this document:
> -->
> 
> 
> 14) <!-- [rfced] May we rephrase this sentence to improve clarity?
> 
> Original:
>    Considerations in the message passing between the PCC and the PCE for
>    the E flag bit which are not supported by the entity are outlined in
>    this section, with requirements for the PCE and the PCC implementing
>    this document described at the end.
> 
> Perhaps:
>    This section outlines considerations for the E flag bit in the message
>    passing between the PCC and the PCE that are not supported by the entity.
>    The requirements for the PCE and the PCC implementing this document are described
>    at the end.
> -->
> 
> 
> 15) <!-- [rfced] Should "PCUpd E flag (and L flag)" be updated to "the E flag (and
> L flag) in a PCUpd message" or something similar? Also, we used a
> semicolon and changed "therefore" to "so" for clarity. Please review.
> 
> Original:
>    For PCC-initiated LSPs, PCUpd E flag (and L flag) is an echo from the
>    previous PCRpt however the bit value is ignored on the PCE from the
>    previous PCRpt, therefore the E flag value set in the PCUpd is zero.
> 
> Perhaps:
>    For PCC-initiated LSPs, the E flag (and L flag) in a PCUpd message is an echo from the
>    previous PCRpt message; however, the bit value is ignored on the PCE from the
>    previous PCRpt message, so the E flag value set in the PCUpd message is 0.
> -->
> 
> 
> 16) <!-- [rfced] Will readers understand what "it" refers to here?
> 
> Original:
>    For a PCC which does support this document, it MAY set the E flag to
>    1 depending on local configuration.
> 
> Perhaps:
>    A PCC that does support this document MAY set the E flag to
>    1 depending on local configuration.
> 
> Or:
>    For a PCC that does support this document, the E flag MAY be set to
>    1 depending on local configuration.
> -->
> 
> 
> 17) <!-- [rfced] Would you like the references to be alphabetized or left in their
> current order?
> -->
> 
> 
> 18) <!-- [rfced] Terminology
> 
> a) Please confirm the name/description for the E flag defined in this
> document. We see the following forms used in the document:
> 
> Enforcement
> Protection Enforcement
> Local Protection Enforcement
> 
> Note: The current name in the "LSPA Object Flag Field" registry is "Protection
> Enforcement" (see
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lspa-object-flag-field); if
> needed, we will request an update to the registry prior to publication.
> 
> 
> b) Should "a local protection desired" here read "the L flag"?
> 
> Original:
>    Therefore, a local protection desired does
>    not require the transit router to satisfy protection in order to
>    establish the RSVP signalled path.
> 
> Perhaps:
>    Therefore, the L flag does
>    not require the transit router to satisfy protection in order to
>    establish the RSVP-signaled path.
> 
> 
> c) FYI - We have updated instances of "PCRpt", "PCUpd", "PCReq", and
> "PCInitiate" with the word "message" (i.e., "PCRpt message", "PCUpd message",
> "PCReq message", and "PCInitiate message").
> 
> 
> d) We see "Session Attribute" (initial caps and no hyphen) in RFC 3209, but we
> do not see "SESSION-ATTRIBUTE" (all caps with hyphen). Please review and let
> us know if any updates are needed in the following sentence.
> 
> Original:
>    One such concept in PCEP is the 'Local Protection
>    Desired' (L flag in the LSPA Object in [RFC5440]), which was
>    originally defined in the SESSION-ATTRIBUTE Object in RFC3209.
> 
> 
> e) "Segment Routed path" does not appear in RFC 8664, but "Segment
> Routing path" does. Are any changes needed in these sentences?
> 
> Original:
>    PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing ([RFC8664]) extends support in
>    PCEP for Segment Routed paths.
>    ...
>    When computing a Segment Routed path, It is RECOMMENDED that a PCE
>    assume a Node SID is protected.
> 
> f) We see that "LSP object" is used in both RFCs 8231 and 8281,
> but "LSP Attribute Object" (or "LSPA") is not used in either. Should the
> sentence below be updated to reflect usage in the cited documents?
> 
> Original:
>    It is
>    important to note that [RFC8231] and [RFC8281] permit the LSP
>    Attribute Object to be included in PCUpd messages for PCC-initiated
>    and PCE-initiated LSPs.
> -->
> 
> 
> 19) <!-- [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.
> 
> Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
> Label Switched Path (LSP)
> Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS)
> Service Level Agreement (SLA)
> -->
> 
> 
> 20) <!-- [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.
> -->
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> RFC Editor/rv/ap
> 
> On Sep 28, 2023, at 2:02 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> *****IMPORTANT*****
> 
> Updated 2023/09/28
> 
> 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/rfc9488.xml
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488.pdf
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488.txt
> 
> Diff file of the text:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488-diff.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
> 
> Diff of the XML:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488-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/rfc9488.original.v2v3.xml
> 
> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
> only:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488.form.xml
> 
> 
> Tracking progress
> -----------------
> 
> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9488
> 
> Please let us know if you have any questions.
> 
> Thank you for your cooperation,
> 
> RFC Editor
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC9488 (draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-11)
> 
> Title            : Local Protection Enforcement in PCEP
> Author(s)        : A. Stone, M. Aissaoui, S. Sidor, S. Sivabalan
> WG Chair(s)      : Julien Meuric, Dhruv Dhody
> 
> Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
>