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

[dsaucez <[e-mail]>]

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
>