Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9377 <draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-12> for your review

[[e-mail]]

Authors,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve 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] May we update this sentence as follows for correctness?
The changes are to
- move the phrase "that use the entire forwarding capacity                                       
of the L1 areas" so that it modifies "networks"
- change "introducing" to "introduces" for consistent verb tense

Original:
   It allows networks to be built that use
   the entire forwarding capacity of the L1 areas, while at the same
   time introducing control plane scaling benefits provided by L2 flood
   reflectors.

Perhaps:
   It allows networks that use
   the entire forwarding capacity of the L1 areas to be built, while
   at the same time it introduces control plane scaling benefits that
   are provided by L2 flood reflectors.
-->


3) <!-- [rfced] Since a glossary is an alphabetized list of terms,
may we alphabetize the terms in the "Glossary"? Or would you prefer to
change "Glossary" to "Terminology" and leave the terms in
their current order?
-->


4) <!-- [rfced] FYI, to match past RFCs, we updated "IS-IS Level-1" and "IS-IS                   
Level-2" to "IS-IS Level 1" and "IS-IS Level 2", respectively.

Original:
   ISIS Level-1 and Level-2 areas, mostly abbreviated as L1 and L2:
      Traditional ISIS concepts whereas a routing domain has two
      "levels" with a single L2 area being the "backbone" that connects
      multiple L1 areas for scaling and reliability purposes.

Current:
   IS-IS Level 1 and Level 2 areas (mostly abbreviated as L1 and L2):
      Traditional IS-IS concepts whereas a routing domain has two
      "levels" with a single L2 area being the "backbone" that connects
      multiple L1 areas for scaling and reliability purposes.
-->


5) <!-- [rfced] We had trouble parsing these two sentences and understanding
what "it" refers to at the end of the second sentence. For clarity, may
we update the sentence as follows or otherwise?

Also, please clarify "L1-L1". Should "L1-L1" be written "L1->L1" 
to use notation similar to within this document for "L2->L1"?

Original:
      Traditional ISIS concepts whereas a routing domain has two
      "levels" with a single L2 area being the "backbone" that connects
      multiple L1 areas for scaling and reliability purposes. In
      traditional ISIS L2 can be used as transit for L1-L1 traffic but
      L1 areas cannot be used for that purpose since L2 level must be
      "connected" and all traffic flows along L2 routers until it
      arrives at the destination L1 area.

Perhaps:
      Traditional IS-IS concepts where a routing domain has two
      "levels" with a single L2 area being the "backbone" that connects
      multiple L1 areas for scaling and reliability purposes.  In
      traditional ISIS, L2 can be used as transit for L1-L1 traffic, but
      L1 areas cannot be used for that purpose because the L2 level must
      be "connected", and all traffic flows along L2 routers until the
      traffic arrives at the destination L1 area.
-->


6) <!-- [rfced] The comma in this sentence breaks apart the objects of the
verb. We suggest replacing ", and" with "and to build". Please let us
know if you prefer otherwise.

Original:
   Flood Reflector Client:
      Node configured to build Flood Reflector Adjacencies to Flood
      Reflectors, and normal adjacencies to other clients and L2 nodes
      not participating in flood reflection.

Perhaps:
   Flood Reflector Client:
      Node configured to build Flood Reflector Adjacencies to Flood
      Reflectors and to build normal adjacencies to other clients and
      L2 nodes not participating in flood reflection.
-->


7) <!-- [rfced] Does "this" refer to "a flood reflection mechanism"
mentioned in the preceding paragraph?

Original:
   First, this allows multi-area IS-IS deployments to scale without any
   major modifications in the IS-IS implementation on most of the nodes
   deployed in the network.

Suggested:
   First, a flood reflection mechanism allows multi-area IS-IS deployments
   to scale without any major modifications in the IS-IS implementation on
   most of the nodes deployed in the network.
-->


8) <!-- [rfced] Please clarify this sentence. Is "L2 computation"
the subject of "can lead"?

Original:
   The L2
   computation determines the egress L1/L2 and with that can create
   illusions of ECMP where there is none, and in certain scenarios lead
   to an L1/L2 egress which is not globally optimal.

Perhaps:
   The L2
   computation determines the egress L1/L2 and, with that, can create
   illusions of ECMP where there is none; and in certain scenarios,
   the L2 computation can lead to an L1/L2 egress that is not globally
   optimal.

-->


9) <!-- [rfced] This sentence in Section 4.2 and 4.4 seems to be pointing to
Section 4.1. Would you like these two instances to mention the section number?

Original:
   Flood Reflection Cluster ID:  The Flood Reflection Cluster Identifier
      is the same as that defined in the Flood Reflection TLV and obeys
      the same rules.

Perhaps:
   Flood Reflection Cluster ID:  The Flood Reflection Cluster Identifier
      is the same as that defined in the Flood Reflection TLV in Section
      4.1 and obeys the same rules.
-->

10) <!-- [rfced] Please clarify this sentence, particularly "and in the                          
following hop the L2 egress to which it has a forwarding tunnel."
May we update to the following? Or is there another way we can update for
clarity?

Original:
   Due
   to the rules in Section 4.6 the computation in the resulting topology
   is relatively simple, the L2 SPF from a flood reflector client is
   guaranteed to reach the Flood Reflector within a single hop, and in
   the following hop the L2 egress to which it has a forwarding tunnel.

Perhaps:
   Due
   to the rules in Section 4.6, the computation in the resulting topology
   is relatively simple: the L2 SPF from a flood reflector client is
   guaranteed to reach the Flood Reflector within a single hop, and in
   the following hop, it is guaranteed to reach the L2 egress to which
   it has a forwarding tunnel.
-->


11) <!--[rfced] FYI, this sentence appears at the end of the 1st paragraph
and was repeated at the end of the 2nd paragraph of the Security Considerations,
so the second instance has been removed. Please let us know if you prefer otherwise.

   Since the available security procedures will vary by
   deployment and tunnel type, the details of securing tunnels are
   beyond the scope of this document.
-->


12) <!--[rfced] May this be rephrased for clarity? In particular, the phrase
"in case a tunnel is compromised if the tunnel itself does not provide..."
reads oddly; may we change "if" to "and" as shown below?

Original:
   Additionally, the usual IS-IS security mechanisms [RFC5304] SHOULD be
   deployed to prevent misrepresentation of routing information by an
   attacker in case a tunnel is compromised if the tunnel itself does
   not provide mechanisms strong enough guaranteeing the integrity of
   the messages exchanged.

Perhaps:
   Additionally, the usual IS-IS security mechanisms [RFC5304] SHOULD be
   deployed to prevent misrepresentation of routing information by an
   attacker in case a tunnel is compromised and the tunnel itself does
   not provide mechanisms strong enough to guarantee the integrity of
   the messages exchanged.
-->


13) <!-- [rfced] Terminology:

a) This term is capitalized inconsistently. Please review and let us
know if/how they may be made consistent.

Reserved vs. RESERVED


b) Please clarify "non-FR"; does it refer to "non flood reflection"?
May it be explained as follows, or otherwise?

Original:
   In certain cases where reflectors are attached to same broadcast
   medium, and where some other L2 router, which is neither a flood
   reflector nor a flood reflector client (a "non-FR router") attaches ...

Perhaps:
   In certain cases where reflectors are attached to same broadcast
   medium, and where some other L2 router that is neither a flood
   reflector nor a flood reflector client (a "non-FR router", where
   "FR" stands for flood reflection) attaches ...

c) Please review usage of LSPDU vs. LSP.
It seems this document uses both to refer to "Link State PDU".
For consistency, would you like to update all instances of LSPDU to LSP,
or vice versa?
-->


14) <!-- [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.

In addition, please consider whether "tradition", "traditional", and
"traditionally" should be updated for clarity.  While the NIST website
<https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructio\
ns#table1>
indicates that this term is potentially biased, it is also ambiguous.
"Tradition" is a subjective term, as it is not the same for everyone.
-->


Thank you.

RFC Editor/st/ar



On Mar 6, 2023, at 11:51 PM, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2023/03/06

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/rfc9377.xml
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.txt

Diff file of the text:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377-diff.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377-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/rfc9377.original.v2v3.xml 

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
only: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9377.form.xml


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

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9377

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9377 (draft-ietf-lsr-isis-flood-reflection-12)

Title            : IS-IS Flood Reflection
Author(s)        : T. Przygienda, Ed., C. Bowers, Y. Lee, A. Sharma, R. White
WG Chair(s)      : Acee Lindem, Christian Hopps
Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston