Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9302 <draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-14> for your review

[Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>]

Hi Authors,

We have updated the files per Dino’s response to the cluster-wide queries, and we have updated Damien’s affiliation information.

Please note that, since we have already received all approvals, we only need 1 author to review the changes and let us know if they are agreeable or if any further changes are needed.

The files have been posted here (please refresh):
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.txt
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.pdf
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.html
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.xml

The relevant diff files are posted here:
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302-auth48diff.html (all AUTH48 changes)
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302-lastdiff.html (htmlwdiff diff between last version and this)
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff between last version and this)

Thank you,
RFC Editor/ap

> On Sep 14, 2022, at 9:07 AM, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Luigi, Olivier, and Damien,
> 
> Thank you for your replies. We have now received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete:
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9302
> 
> As this document is part of Cluster C381, you may track the progress of all documents in this cluster through AUTH48 at:
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C381
> 
> We will move this document forward in the publication process once the other necessary documents in the cluster complete AUTH48 as well
> 
> Please let us know if you have any questions.
> 
> RFC Editor/ap
> 
>> On Sep 14, 2022, at 3:18 AM, dsaucez <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> I am ok with the suggestions as well.
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> 
>> Damien Saucez 
>> 
>>> On 14 Sep 2022, at 10:44, Olivier Bonaventure <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Same for me, I agree with your changes and Luigi’s comments.
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Olivier Bonaventure
>>> 
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: Luigi IANNONE <[e-mail]>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2022 8:51 AM
>>> To: Alanna Paloma
>>> Cc: [e-mail]; Damien Saucez; Olivier Bonaventure; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>> Subject: RE: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9302 <draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-14> for your review
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I had a look at the latest diff and it looks all good to me.
>>> 
>>> Thanks for your work.
>>> 
>>> Ciao
>>> 
>>> L.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, 14 September 2022 00:51
>>>> To: Luigi IANNONE <[e-mail]>
>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9302 <draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-14> for your
>>>> review
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Luigi,
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you for your reply.  We have updated as requested.
>>>> 
>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.xml
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.txt
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.html
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.pdf
>>>> 
>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302-auth48diff.html (AUTH48
>>>> changes)
>>>> 
>>>> Please review the document carefully and contact us with any further
>>>> updates you may have.  Note that we do not make changes once a
>>>> document is published as an RFC.
>>>> 
>>>> We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status page
>>>> below prior to moving this document forward in the publication process.
>>>> 
>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9302
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> RFC Editor/ap
>>>> 
>>>>> On Sep 13, 2022, at 4:24 AM, Luigi IANNONE
>>>> <luigi.iannone=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you very much for this review,
>>>>> See comments inline.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 13 September 2022 06:37
>>>>>> To: Luigi IANNONE <[e-mail]>;
>>>> [e-mail];
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>>>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9302 <draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-14> 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. -->
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] RFC 6834 says the following:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It is not meant to replace any
>>>>>> existing LISP mechanisms but rather to extend them by providing new
>>>>>> functionalities.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Should this text indicate that it updates the extensions or
>>>>>> functionalities, rather than the mechanisms?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Can be simplified to:
>>>>> 
>>>>> It is not meant to replace any existing LISP mechanism, rather providing
>>>> new functionalities.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Better?
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>> This document obsoletes RFC 6834 "Locator/ID Separation Protocol
>>>>>> (LISP) Map-Versioning", which is the initial experimental
>>>>>> specifications of the mechanisms updated by this document.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>> This document obsoletes [RFC6834], which is the initial experimental
>>>>>> specifications of the mechanisms updated by this document.
>>>>>> -->
>>>>> I guess the second is actually new text, which reads better.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 3) <!-- [rfced]  In the following, to what does "it" and "both" refer?
>>>>>> Is it "Map-Versioning" or "the information"?  Because there are two
>>>>>> uses and the text refers to "both cases", we suggest using updating
>>>>>> this text to clearly separate the uses (e.g., perhaps use <ol> or <ul>).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>> When Map-Versioning is used, LISP-encapsulated data packets contain
>>>>>> the version number of the two mappings used to select the RLOCs in
>>>>>> the outer header (i.e., both source and destination RLOCs).  This
>>>>>> information has two uses.  On the one hand, it enables the ETR
>>>>>> (Egress Tunnel Router) receiving the packet to know if the ITR
>>>>>> (Ingress Tunnel Router) is using the latest mapping version for the
>>>>>> destination EID.  If this is not the case, the ETR can directly send
>>>>>> a Map-Request containing the updated mapping to the ITR, to notify it
>>>>>> of the latest version.  The ETR can also solicit the ITR to trigger a
>>>>>> Map-Request to obtain the latest mapping by sending it a Solicit Map-
>>>>>> Request (SMR) message.  Both cases are defined in
>>>>>> [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].  On the other hand, it enables an ETR
>>>>>> receiving such a packet to know if it has in its EID-to-RLOC Map-
>>>>>> Cache the latest mapping for the source EID.  If this is not the
>>>>>> case, a Map-Request can be sent.
>>>>>> -->
>>>>> 
>>>>> New suggested text:
>>>>> 
>>>>> When Map-Versioning is used, LISP-encapsulated data packets contain
>>>>> the version number of the two mappings used to select the RLOCs in
>>>>> the outer header (i.e., both source and destination RLOCs).  This
>>>>> information has two uses:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1. Map-Versioning enables the ETR  (Egress Tunnel Router) receiving
>>>>>     the packet to know if the ITR (Ingress Tunnel Router) is using the latest
>>>>>     mapping version for the destination EID.  If this is not the case, the ETR
>>>>>     can directly send a Map-Request containing the updated mapping to
>>>>>     the ITR, to notify it of the latest version.  The ETR can also solicit the
>>>>>     ITR to trigger a Map-Request to obtain the latest mapping by sending
>>>>>     a Solicit Map- Request (SMR) message.  Both options are defined in
>>>>>     [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2. Map-Versioning enables an ETR  receiving the packet to know if it
>>>>>    has in its EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache the latest mapping for the
>>>>>    source EID.  If this is not the case, a Map-Request can be sent.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Better?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 4) <!--[rfced] May we update instances of "Dest Map-Version number"
>>>>>> to "Destination Map-Version number" to reflect usage in RFC 6834?
>>>>>> Note that this document has 2 instances of "Destination Map-Version
>>>>>> number" and 14 instances of "Dest Map-Version number".
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>> Dest Map-Version number:  Map-Version of the mapping in the EID-to-
>>>>>>  RLOC Map-Cache used by the ITR to select the RLOC present in the
>>>>>>  "Destination Routing Locator" field of the outer IP header of LISP-
>>>>>>  encapsulated packets (Section 7.1).
>>>>>> -->
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Actually should be the other way around, changing the two instances of
>>>> "Destination Map-Version Number: to "Dest Map-Version Number". The use
>>>> of "Dest Map-Version Number" has been chosen to be inline with the figure
>>>> 1 throughout the document.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, may we update this text as follows?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>> The ordering enables reacting differently to
>>>>>> "older" and "newer" Map-Version number, discarding the packet in the
>>>>>> former case and triggering a Map-Request in the latter (see Section 7
>>>>>> for further details).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>> The ordering enables different reactions to
>>>>>> "older" and "newer" Map-Version numbers, whereby "older" numbers
>>>> are
>>>>>> discarded and "newer" numbers trigger Map-Requests (see Section 7
>>>>>> for further details).
>>>>>> -->
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yes. It reads better.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] Do you want to use superscript (<sup>) here?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>     V2 > V1 AND (V2 - V1) <= 2**(12-1)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>      OR
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>      V1 > V2 AND (V1 - V2) > 2**(12-1)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> <sup> would display as follows in the text:
>>>>>>      V2 > V1 AND (V2 - V1) <= 2^(12-1)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>      OR
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>      V1 > V2 AND (V1 - V2) > 2^(12-1)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> (12-1) would display as superscript in HTML and PDF.
>>>>>> -->
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yes, good idea.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 7) <!-- [rfced] Is it the LISP site that assigns a new Map-Version number?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>> The main idea of using Map-Version numbers is that whenever there is
>>>>>> a change in the mapping (e.g., adding/removing RLOCs, a change in the
>>>>>> weights due to Traffic Engineering policies, or a change in the
>>>>>> priorities) or a LISP site realizes that one or more of its own RLOCs
>>>>>> are not reachable anymore from a local perspective (e.g., through
>>>>>> IGP, or policy changes) the LISP site updates the mapping, also
>>>>>> assigning a new Map-Version number.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>> The main idea of using Map-Version numbers is that whenever there is
>>>>>> a change in the mapping (e.g., adding/removing RLOCs, a change in the
>>>>>> weights due to Traffic Engineering policies, or a change in the
>>>>>> priorities) or a LISP site realizes that one or more of its own RLOCs
>>>>>> are no longer reachable from a local perspective (e.g., through IGP
>>>>>> or policy changes), the LISP site updates the mapping and also assigns
>>>>>> a new Map-Version number.
>>>>>> -->
>>>>> 
>>>>> The suggested text is OK.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Is mapping intended to be singular or plural here?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>> To this end simple measures can be
>>>>>> taken, like updating a mapping only when all active traffic is using
>>>>>> the latest version, or waiting sufficient time to be sure that
>>>>>> mapping in LISP caches expire, which means waiting at least as much
>>>>>> as the mapping Time-To-Live (as defined in
>>>>>> [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>> To this end, simple measures can be taken, like
>>>>>> updating a mapping only when all active traffic is using the latest
>>>>>> version, or waiting a sufficient amount of time to be sure that the
>>>>>> mapping in LISP caches expires, which means waiting at least as long
>>>>>> as the mapping Time To Live (TTL) (as defined in [RFC9301]).
>>>>>> -->
>>>>> 
>>>>> Singular is correct.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 9) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble parsing this sentence.  Should
>>>>>> the second instance of "ignoring the Source Map-Version number" be
>>>> deleted?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>> The ETR checks only the Dest Map-Version number, ignoring the Source
>>>>>> Map-Version number as specified in the final sentence of Section 7.2,
>>>>>> ignoring the Source Map-Version number.
>>>>>> -->
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yes, delete the second instance.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 10) <!-- [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.
>>>>>> -->
>>>>> 
>>>>> Nothing to change IMO.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ciao
>>>>> 
>>>>> L.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> RFC Editor
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sep 12, 2022, at 9:33 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Updated 2022/09/12
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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/rfc9302.xml
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.html
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.pdf
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.txt
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Diff file of the text:
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302-diff.html
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302-rfcdiff.html (side by
>>>>>> side)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Diff of the XML:
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302-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/rfc9302.original.v2v3.xml
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
>>>>>> only:
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.form.xml
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Tracking progress
>>>>>> -----------------
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9302
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> RFC Editor
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>>> RFC9302 (draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-14)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Title            : Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning
>>>>>> Author(s)        : L. Iannone, D. Saucez, O. Bonaventure
>>>>>> WG Chair(s)      : Joel M. Halpern, Luigi Iannone
>>>>>> Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
>>> 
>> 
>