Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9502 <draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo-16> for your review

[[e-mail]]

Authors,

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

1) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, should the D-flag point to the "up/down bit" 
as was done in RFC 9352?  In addition, should Reserved be defined? 

Original: 
                    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                   |D|  Reserved   |
                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

         D-flag: When the Prefix is leaked from level-2 to level-1, the
         D bit MUST be set.  Otherwise, this bit MUST be clear.
         Prefixes with the D bit set MUST NOT be leaked from level-1 to
         level-2.  This is to prevent looping.

>From RFC 9352: 
   D-flag: "up/down bit" as described in Section 4.1 of [RFC5305].
-->


2) <!-- [rfced] To match the rest of the list, should a definition for
"Optional sub-TLVs (variable length)" be included?

Current:
   Algorithm (1 octet):  Associated Algorithm from 128 to 255.

   Prefix Len (1 octet):  Prefix length measured in bits.

   Prefix (variable length):  Prefix mapped to Flex-Algorithm.

   Optional Sub-TLV-length (1 octet):  Number of octets used by sub-TLVs

   Optional sub-TLVs (variable length)
-->


3) <!-- [rfced] Please note that we moved the ruler over one space, so the 
numbers appear over the hyphens.  Please let us know if any corrections are 
needed. 

Updated Figure 5:
     0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |              Type             |             Length            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |       MT-ID   |  Algorithm    |     Flags     |     Reserved  |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                          Metric                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Updated Figure 6:
     0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |              Type             |             Length            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                     Forwarding Address                        |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-->


4) <!-- [rfced] Please clarify how "and the ASBR is reachable in" relates to 
the rest of the sentence. Would the following text provide clarity while
retaining the original meaning?

Original:
   An OSPF ABR MUST include the OSPF IPFAAM Sub-TLVs as part of the ASBR
   reachability advertisement between areas for every IP Flex-Algorithm
   in which it participates and the ASBR is reachable in.

Perhaps:
   An OSPF ABR MUST include the OSPF IPFAAM Sub-TLVs as part of the ASBR
   reachability advertisement between the areas for every IP 
   Flex-Algorithm it participates in and the ASBR it is reachable in.
-->


5) <!-- [rfced] Note that we lowercased n and y to match what appears in the 
IANA registry.  Please let us know any objections. 

Current in Table 3: 

 IIH | LSP | SNP | Purge
+=====+=====+=====+=======+
| n   | y   | n   | n     |
... 
| n   | y   | n   | n     |
-->


6) <!-- [rfced] We have updated the Description to match what appears in the 
IANA registry (see https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml#isis-tlv-codepoints-advertising-prefix-reachability).  
Please let us know if any corrections are needed. 

Original: 
   Flex-Algorithm Prefix Metric

Current: 
   Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric (FAPM)
-->


7) <!-- [rfced] It appears as though there are more recent versions of this 
document available.  Is the reference to Release 16.4.0 correct or should the 
reference be updated to point to a more recent version? 
See https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=3144. 

Current: 
   [TS.23.501-3GPP]
              3GPP, "System Architecture for 5G System", Release 16.4.0,
              3GPP TS 23.501, March 2020.
-->


8) <!-- [rfced] Terminology

a) Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used
inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how they
may be made consistent.

   Flex-Algorithm 
   Flex Algorithm 
   flex-algo 
   Flexible Algorithm


b) Should "IP flex-algo prefixes" be "IP Flex-Algorithm Prefixes"? Please let
us know if any updates are needed.


c) Please confirm that "bit E" is desired, as opposed to "E bit" (similar to 
"D bit" and "S bit"). 

   bit E -> E bit


d) It is unclear if "sub-TLV" (uncapitalized) is used for the generic noun 
and "Sub-TLV" (capitalized) is used for the proper noun? Please review and 
let us know if any updates are needed. 

Examples: 
the sub-TLV space
this Sub-TLV
IP Algorithm Sub-TLV is a sub-TLV
Prefix Reachability Sub-TLV is a sub-TLV
IPFAAM Sub-TLV is a Sub-TLV
-->


9) <!-- [rfced] Acronyms and their expansions: 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.
-->


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.
-->


Thank you.

RFC Editor


On Oct 25, 2023, at 3:55 PM, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2023/10/25

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/rfc9502.xml
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502.txt

Diff file of the text:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502-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/rfc9502.original.v2v3.xml 

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
only: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502.form.xml


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

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9502

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9502 (draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo-16)

Title            : IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks
Author(s)        : W. Britto, S. Hegde, P. Kaneriya, R. Shetty, R. Bonica, P. Psenak
WG Chair(s)      : Acee Lindem, Christian Hopps
Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston