Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9545 <draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment-22> for your review

["Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

Thank you for the careful editing of the document.

Please see replies inline with <RG>….


From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 8:45 PM
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9545 <draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment-22> for your review
Authors,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.

1) <!--[rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->

<RG> How about following?
Performance Measurement
Bidirectional SR Path
End-to-End Path Protection


2) <!--[rfced] How may we adjust the sentence below for clarity? Specifically,
how does "SR-MPLS" relate to the rest of the sentence?

Original:
   In the MPLS data plane SR-MPLS [RFC8660] the SR header is
   instantiated through a label stack.

Perhaps:
   In the SR-MPLS data plane [RFC8660], the SR header is
   instantiated through a label stack.
-->

<RG>  How about following?
In SR with MPLS data plane [RFC8660], the SR header is
   instantiated through a label stack.


3) <!--[rfced] Would you like to alphabetize the terms listed in Section 1.2?
Or do you prefer the current order?
-->

<RG> alphabetize

4) <!--[rfced] FYI - We have updated the definition of "SR-MPLS" in Section 1.2
to clarify the 1:1 relationship between the abbreviation and its
expansion. Please let us know any objections.

Original:
   SR-MPLS: Instantiation of SR on the MPLS data plane.

Current:
   SR-MPLS: SR over MPLS
-->

<RG> ok


5) <!--[rfced] We note some terms appear separated with a slash (/) in this
document, but it may be unclear whether the slash stands for "and", "or", or
"and/or". Please review the instances below and let us know how they may
be updated for clarity.

Original:
   When a PSID is used, the PSID can be inserted at the ingress node and
   MUST immediately follow the last label of the SR path, in other
   words, inserted after the routing segment (adjacency/node/prefix
   segment) pointing to the egress node of the SR path.
   ...
   A PSID in SR-MPLS is a local label similar to other labels/Segment,
   such as a VPN label, defined in MPLS and SR-MPLS.
-->

<RG> How about following:
   words, inserted after the routing segment (adjacency, node, or prefix
   segment) pointing to the egress node of the SR path.
…
   A PSID in SR-MPLS is a local label similar to other labels and segments,
   such as a VPN label, defined in MPLS and SR-MPLS.


6) <!--[rfced] We note that the formatting of ellipses and commas in the
two examples below varies. Should these be made consistent?

Original:
   The SID list of a sub-path can be expressed as <SID1, SID2, ...SIDn, s-PSID>

   The SID list of the end-to-end path can be expressed as <BSID1, BSID2, ..., BSIDn, e-PSID>

Perhaps:
   The SID list of a sub-path can be expressed as <SID1, SID2, ..., SIDn, s-PSID>

   The SID list of the end-to-end path can be expressed as <BSID1, BSID2, ..., BSIDn, e-PSID>
-->

<RG> ok.


7) <!--[rfced] We note that Figure 2 uses both "Sub-path" and "SubPath".
May we update these instances to be "Sub-path" or "sub-path" to reflect
the term's usage in the running text of this document? Please let us
know your preference.
-->

<RG> sub-path


8) <!--[rfced] Did Alexander Vainshtein contribute to Section 3.4 or Figure 2?
As both have the same title, may we add a citation to clarify his contribution?

Original:
   The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution from Alexander
   Vainshtein on "Nesting of PSIDs".

Perhaps A:
   The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution from Alexander
   Vainshtein on "Nesting of PSIDs" (Section 3.4).

Perhaps B:
   The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution from Alexander
   Vainshtein on "Nesting of PSIDs" (Figure 2).
-->

<RG> A:
   The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution from Alexander
   Vainshtein on "Nesting of PSIDs" (Section 3.4).


9) <!--[rfced] In recent RFCs, we note that Greg Mirsky's organization appears as
"Ericsson", but in this document it appears as "ZTE Corp". Please let us
know if any updates are needed. -->

<RG> From RFC 9534.
   Greg Mirsky
   Ericsson
   United States of America
   Email: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>


10) <!--[rfced] FYI - We have made the following updates to the terminology used
in this document. Please review and let us know any objections.

a. We have added expansions for abbreviations upon first use
per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each
expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness.

 Associated Channel Header (ACH)
 Label Switched Path (LSP)

<RG> ok.

b. The following terms appear inconsistently capitalized and/or hyphenated
throughout this document. We have updated to use the term listed on the right
for consistency within the document and/or to match previous RFCs.

 segment list / Segment-List / Segment List > segment list
 Performance Measurement > performance measurement (per RFC 7799)
 SR Path > SR path
 Egress > egress
 Label Stack > label stack
-->

<RG> ok

11) <!--[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. -->

<RG> It’s ok.
Thanks,
Rakesh


Thank you.

RFC Editor/kf/ap


On Feb 15, 2024, at 5:42 PM, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2024/02/15

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/rfc9545.xml
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9545.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9545.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9545.txt

Diff file of the text:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9545-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9545-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9545-xmldiff1.html


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9545

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9545 (draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment-22)

Title            : Path Segment Identifier in MPLS Based Segment Routing Network
Author(s)        : W. Cheng, Ed., H. Li, C. Li, Ed., R. Gandhi, R. Zigler
WG Chair(s)      : Bruno Decraene, Alvaro Retana, Joel M. Halpern

Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston