Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9513 <draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-15> for your review

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Madison,

Please check inline below for responses.


On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 4:42 PM Madison Church <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> This is a friendly weekly reminder that this document awaits your
> attention. Please review the document-specific questions and AUTH48
> announcement. Let us know if we can be of assistance as you begin the
> AUTH48 review process.
>
> The AUTH48 status page of this document is viewable at:
>   http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9513
>
> The AUTH48 FAQs are available at:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/#auth48
>
> We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
>
> Thank you,
> RFC Editor/mc
>
> > On Oct 30, 2023, at 7:02 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> >
> > Authors,
> >
> > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as
> necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
> >
> >
> > 1) <!-- [rfced] Please note that the title of the document has been
> updated as
> > follows. Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322
> ("RFC
> > Style Guide").
> >
> > Original:
> >  OSPFv3 Extensions for SRv6
> >
> > Current:
> >  OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6)
> > -->
>

KT> Sounds good to me.


> >
> >
> > 2) <!-- [rfced] Registry names
> >
> > a) FYI - We updated "IGP MSD Types" here to "IGP MSD-Types" (with
> > hyphen) as we believe this refers to the registry at
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml#igp-msd-types
> .
> >
> > Original:
> >   These MSD Types are allocated under
> >   the IGP MSD Types registry maintained by IANA that are shared by IS-
> >   IS and OSPF.
> >
> > Updated:
> >   These MSD types are allocated in
> >   the "IGP MSD-Types" registry maintained by IANA and are shared by IS-
> >   IS and OSPF.
> >


KT> Yes, you are correct.


>
> > b) FYI - We updated "IGP Algorithm Type" to "IGP Algorithm Types"
> ("Types"
> > rather than "Type") per the name of the registy at
> >
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml#igp-algorithm-types
> .
> >
> > Original (appears multiple times in the document):
> >   Algorithm values are
> >   defined in the IGP Algorithm Type registry [RFC8665].
> >
> > Updated:
> >   Algorithm values are
> >   defined in the "IGP Algorithm Types" registry [RFC8665].
> > -->
>

KT> Yes, you are correct


> >
> >
> > 3) <!-- [rfced] We have updated "as defined in [RFC8986] flavors" as
> > follows. Please review.
> >
> > Original:
> >   The Maximum End Pop MSD Type signals the maximum number of SIDs in
> >   the SRH to which the router can apply "Penultimate Segment Pop (PSP)
> >   of the SRH" or "Ultimate Segment Pop (USP) of the SRH", as defined in
> >   [RFC8986] flavors.
> >
> > Perhaps:
> >   The Maximum End Pop MSD Type signals the maximum number of SIDs in
> >   the SRH to which the router can apply "Penultimate Segment Pop (PSP)
> >   of the SRH" or "Ultimate Segment Pop (USP) of the SRH", which are
> >   defined flavors in [RFC8986].
> > -->
>

KT> One small suggestion on your proposal if that works better ...

Proposed:
... which are defined flavors in [RFC8986].

New Suggestion:
... which are flavors defined in [RFC8986].


> >
> >
> > 4) <!-- [rfced] Should this note be in the <aside> element? The <aside>
> element
> > is defined as "a container for content that is semantically less
> > important or tangential to the content that surrounds it"
> > (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside).
> >
> > Original:
> >   NOTE: The drop behavior depends on the absence of a
> >   default/summary route matching the locator prefix.
> > -->
>

KT> Sure, this could be framed as an "aside" element.


> >
> >
> > 5) <!-- [rfced] We suggest rephrasing the following sentence for
> > readability. Does the suggested text below retain your intended meaning?
> >
> > Original:
> > The procedures for OSPFv3 Flexible Algorithm for SR-MPLS, as
> > specified in [RFC9350], like ASBR reachability, inter-area, external,
> and NSSA
> > prefix advertisements and their use in Flexible Algorithm route
> computation
> > also apply for SRv6.
> >
> > Perhaps:
> > The procedures for OSPFv3 Flexible Algorithm for SR-MPLS as
> > specified in [RFC9350] also apply for SRv6 (e.g., ASBR reachability and
> > inter-area, external, and NSSA prefix advertisements and their use in
> > Flexible Algorithm route computation).
> > -->
>

KT> The procedures are: (a) ASBR reachability, (b) inter-area, external and
NSSA prefix advertisements, (c) the use of those prefix advertisements in
Flexible Algorithm route computation. I hope this clarifies the intent?


> >
> >
> > 6) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We updated "Up to 16-octet field" to "1-16 octets"
> for
> > clarity. Please review.
> >
> > Original:
> >   Locator: Up to 16-octet field.  This field encodes the advertised
> >   SRv6 Locator as an IPv6 Prefix as specified in section A.4.1 of
> >   [RFC5340].
> >
> > Updated:
> >   Locator:
> >      1-16 octets.  This field encodes the advertised SRv6
> >      locator as an IPv6 Prefix as specified in Appendix A.4.1 of
> >      [RFC5340].
> > -->
>

KT> Yes, your proposed text is better.


> >
> >
> > 7) <!-- [rfced] We do not see "END behavior" (with all caps) in RFC
> 8986, though
> > we do see "End behavior" (initial caps). Please review and let us know
> > if any updates are needed here.
> >
> > Original:
> >   Every SRv6-enabled OSPFv3 router SHOULD
> >   advertise at least one SRv6 SID associated with an END behavior for
> >   itself as specified in [RFC8986], although it MAY omit doing so if
> >   that node is not going to be used as a Segment Endpoint (e.g., for TE
> >   or TI-LFA) by any SR Source Node.
> > -->
>

KT> Indeed, it is "End".


> >
> >
> > 8) <!-- [rfced] We have included some specific questions about the IANA
> text in
> > the document. In addition to responding to those questions, please
> > review all of the IANA-related updates carefully and let us know if any
> > updates are needed.
> >
> > a) FYI - We have updated the IANA section to use tables for improved
> readability.
> >


KT> Looks good. Thanks.


>
> >
> > b) Section 13.8: May we update the range as follows to match the range
> listed
> > in the "OSPFv3 SRv6 Locator LSA TLVs" registry? We know that values 0
> and 1
> > are assigned by this document. Link to registry:
> >
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters/ospfv3-parameters.xhtml#srv6-locator-lsa
> >
> > Original:
> >   Types in the range 2-32767 are allocated via IETF Review or IESG
> >   Approval [RFC8126].
> >
> > Perhaps:
> >   Types in the range 0-32767 are allocated via IETF Review or IESG
> >   Approval [RFC8126].
>

KT> Agree.


> >
> >
> > c) Section 13.9: May we update the range as follows to match the range
> listed
> > in the "OSPFv3 SRv6 Locator LSA Sub-TLVs" registry? We know that values
> 0-5
> > and 10 are assigned by this document. Link to registry:
> >
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters/ospfv3-parameters.xhtml#srv6-locator-lsa-sub-tlvs
> .
> >
> > Original:
> >   Types in the range 6-9 and 11-32767 are allocated via IETF Review or
> >   IESG Approval [RFC8126].
> >
> > Perhaps:
> >   Types in the range 0-32767 are allocated via IETF Review or
> >   IESG Approval [RFC8126].
>

KT> Agree.


> >
> >
> > d) Sections 13.9 and 13.10: We updated the notes in these sections as
> follows
> > (it may be easier to see the changes in the diff file). Please review
> and let
> > us know any objections.
> >
> > Note that we will ask IANA to update these notes in the "OSPFv3 SRv6
> Locator
> > LSA TLVs" and "OSPFv3 SRv6 Locator LSA Sub-TLVs" registries,
> respectively, to
> > match the edited document prior to publication.
> >
> > Links to registries:
> >
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters/ospfv3-parameters.xhtml#srv6-locator-lsa
> >
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters/ospfv3-parameters.xhtml#srv6-locator-lsa-sub-tlvs
> >
> > Original:
> >   Note: Allocations made under this registry for any sub-TLVs that are
> >   associated with OSPFv3 SRv6 Locator TLVs MUST be also evaluated for
> >   their applicability as OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs and, therefore,
> >   also requiring allocation under the "OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs"
> >   registry.
> >   ...
> >   Note: Allocations made under this registry for any sub-TLVs that are
> >   associated with OSPFv3 Extended TLVs related to prefix advertisements
> >   MUST be also evaluated for their applicability as OSPFv3 SRv6 Locator
> >   Sub-TLVs and, therefore, also requiring allocation under the "OSPFv3
> >   SRv6 Locator LSA Sub-TLVs" registry.
> >
> > Updated:
> >   |  Note: Allocations made in this registry for sub-TLVs that are
> >   |  associated with OSPFv3 SRv6 Locator TLVs MUST be evaluated for
> >   |  their applicability as OSPFv3 Extended-LSA sub-TLVs, which are
> >   |  required to be allocated in the "OSPFv3 Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs"
> >   |  registry.
> >   ...
> >   |  Note: Allocations made in this registry for sub-TLVs that are
> >   |  associated with OSPFv3 Extended TLVs related to prefix
> >   |  advertisements MUST be evaluated for their applicability as OSPFv3
> >   |  SRv6 Locator sub-TLVs, which are required to be allocated in
> >   |  the "OSPFv3 SRv6 Locator LSA Sub-TLVs" registry.
> > -->
>

KT> Agree


> >
> >
> > 9) <!-- [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. -->
>

KT> Looks good to me.


> >
> >
> > 10) <!-- [rfced] FYI - 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.
> >
> > LSA
> > NSSA
> > TI-LFA
> > -->
>

KT> Thanks


> >
> >
> > 11) <!-- [rfced] Are the terms "legacy OSPFv3 LSA" and "OSPFv3 legacy
> LSA" interchangeable? If so, we suggest using one or the other for
> consistency throughout the document.
> >
> > Original (legacy OSPFv3 LSA):
> >  When operating in Extended LSA sparse-mode [RFC8362], these
> >  locators SHOULD be also advertised using legacy OSPFv3 LSAs [RFC5340].
> >
> > Original (OSPFv3 legacy LSA):
> >  In cases where a locator advertisement is received both in a
> >  prefix reachability advertisement... the prefix reachability
> advertisement in
> >  the OSPFv3 legacy LSA or Extended LSA MUST be preferred over the
> advertisement
> >  in the SRv6 Locator TLV when installing entries in the forwarding plane.
> > -->
>

KT> RFC8362 introduced this term and it was referred to as "Legacy LSA". I
think we can stick to that term (with capitalization) and skip "OSPFv3"
since it is understood as an OSPFv3 protocol specification. The other term
is "Extended LSA".

Thanks,
Ketan



> >
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > RFC Editor/mc/rv
> >
> >
> >
> > On Oct 30, 2023, at 5:00 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> >
> > *****IMPORTANT*****
> >
> > Updated 2023/10/30
> >
> > 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/rfc9513.xml
> >  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9513.html
> >  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9513.pdf
> >  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9513.txt
> >
> > Diff file of the text:
> >  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9513-diff.html
> >  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9513-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
> >
> > Alt-diff of the text (allows you to more easily view changes
> > where text has been deleted or moved):
> >  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9513-alt-diff.html
> >
> > Diff of the XML:
> >  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9513-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/rfc9513.original.v2v3.xml
> >
> > XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
> > only:
> >  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9513.form.xml
> >
> >
> > Tracking progress
> > -----------------
> >
> > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
> >  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9513
> >
> > Please let us know if you have any questions.
> >
> > Thank you for your cooperation,
> >
> > RFC Editor
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > RFC9513 (draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-15)
> >
> > Title            : OSPFv3 Extensions for SRv6
> > Author(s)        : Z. Li, Z. Hu, K. Talaulikar, Ed., P. Psenak
> > WG Chair(s)      : Acee Lindem, Christian Hopps
> > Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
>
>