Re: [auth48] [Cluster447] AUTH48 Questions: RFC 9513 <draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-15> and RFC 9514 <draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-14>

[Madison Church <[e-mail]>]

Ketan,

We also wanted to point out that we lowercased “locator” in the following sentences in both documents per your guidance; for consistency, we also lowercased for “function” and “argument”. Let us know any concerns.

Original (RFC-to-be 9513):
  An SRv6 Segment Identifier (SID) is 128 bits and consists of Locator,
  Function, and Argument parts as described in [RFC8986].

Original (RFC-to-be 9514):
  As specified in [RFC8986], an SRv6 SID comprises Locator, Function
  and Argument parts.

Current (RFC-to-be 9513):
  An SRv6 SID is 128 bits and consists of locator, function, and
  argument parts as described in [RFC8986].

Current (RFC-to-be 9514):
  As specified in [RFC8986], an SRv6 SID comprises locator, function,
  and argument parts.

Thank you,
RFC Editor/mc

> On Nov 17, 2023, at 12:30 PM, Madison Church <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ketan,
> 
> Thank you for the clarification! We have made updates to RFC 9513 and RFC 9514 accordingly.
> 
> Thank you,
> RFC Editor/mc
> 
>> On Nov 17, 2023, at 7:33 AM, Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Madison,
>> 
>> Please check inline below.
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 3:26 AM Madison Church <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Hi Ketan,
>> 
>> Thank you for reviewing these cluster-wide questions! We have some followups below.
>> 
>>>> 1) Please review instances of "Locator" and "locator" (not prefaced with
>>>> "SRv6"), and let us know if any updates are needed.
>>>> 
>>>> Both documents use the capitalized form for "SRv6 Locator", "SRv6 Locator
>>>> LSA", and "SRv6 Locator TLV". Unless you indicate otherwise, we will leave these as is.
>>> 
>>> KT> The existing usage looks good to me.
>> 
>> To clarify, we see both “Locator” (capped) and “locator” (lowercase) used in the documents. Is one form preferred? Both documents use the capitalized form when prefaced with “SRv6”; that is, both use "SRv6 Locator”. However, when not prefaced with “SRv6”, the capitalization varies. Here are some examples:
>> 
>> 9513:
>>  Each locator is a covering
>>  prefix for all SIDs provisioned on that router that have the matching
>>  algorithm.
>> 
>>  Forwarding entries for the locators advertised in ...
>> 
>> 9514:
>>  A node is provisioned with one or more Locators supported by that
>>  node.  
>> 
>>  Each Locator is advertised as a BGP-LS Prefix NLRI
>>  object along with the SRv6 Locator TLV in its BGP-LS Attribute.
>> 
>> KT> Perhaps we should just follow the convention from RFC 9352 which capitalizes Locator only when referencing a TLV or when preceded with SRv6?
>> 
>> 
>>>> 2) Please review instances of the following and let us know if any updates are needed. We see "Endpoint behavior" used in RFC 8986. 
>>>> 
>>>> endpoint behavior 
>>>> Endpoint behavior 
>>>> Endpoint Behavior 
>>>> 
>>>> Note: We will use the capitalized form "Endpoint Behavior" in the context of
>>>> "Endpoint Behavior field" and "SRv6 Endpoint Behavior TLV" (defined in Section
>>>> 7.1 of RFC-to-be 9514).
>>> 
>>> KT> Agree
>> 
>> To clarify, we see the following forms used in general text (not in context of "Endpoint Behavior field" and "SRv6 Endpoint Behavior TLV”):
>> 
>> endpoint behavior 
>> Endpoint behavior 
>> Endpoint Behavior 
>> 
>> Is one of these forms preferred? Here are some examples:
>> 
>> KT> Here too, let us follow RFC9352 which is also more or less consistent with RFC8986 - so "Endpoint behavior".
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Ketan
>> 
>> 9513:
>>  The endpoint behavior code point
>>  for this SRv6 SID as defined in [RFC8986].  
>> 
>>  The Maximum Segments Left MSD Type signals the maximum value of the
>>  Segments Left field of the SRH of a received packet before applying
>>  the Endpoint behavior associated with a SID.  
>> 
>>  The Maximum Segments Left MSD Type signals the maximum value of the
>>  Segments Left field of the SRH of a received packet before applying
>>  the Endpoint behavior associated with a SID.  
>> 
>> 9514:
>>  The Endpoint Behavior code point
>>  for this SRv6 SID as defined in Section 10.2 of [RFC8986].
>> 
>>  *  The endpoint behavior of the SRv6 SID is advertised via the SRv6
>>     Endpoint Behavior TLV (Section 7.1).
>> 
>>  When advertising the SRv6 SIDs corresponding to the BGP EPE
>>  functionality, the Endpoint Behavior corresponds to End.X and similar
>>  behaviors.  
>> 
>> Thank you!
>> RFC Editor/mc
>> 
>>> On Nov 7, 2023, at 4:46 PM, Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Madison,
>>> 
>>> Please check inline below for responses.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 8:47 PM Madison Church <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> We are forwarding the Cluster 447 email in case it was not received on your end when it was initially sent.
>>> 
>>> Thank you!
>>> RFC Editor/mc
>>> 
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>> 
>>>> From: [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: [Cluster447] AUTH48 Questions: RFC 9513 <draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-15> and RFC 9514 <draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-14>
>>>> Date: October 30, 2023 at 7:15:34 PM CDT
>>>> To: "[e-mail]"@gmail.com, [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
>>>> Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
>>>> 
>>>> Hi authors,
>>>> 
>>>> While reviewing this cluster of documents*, please reply to the questions
>>>> below regarding consistency across the cluster. These questions are in
>>>> addition to the document-specific questions sent for each RFC-to-be. Your
>>>> reply will likely impact both documents in the cluster, so
>>>> please discuss off-list as necessary, and then let us know how to
>>>> proceed. Note - You have the option of updating the edited XML files yourself,
>>>> if you prefer.  We will wait to hear from you before continuing with the
>>>> publication process.
>>>> 
>>>> * Cluster 447 (C447) currently in AUTH48 state:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9513.html 
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514.html 
>>>> (In addition, the .pdf, .txt, .xml, and diff files are available.)
>>>> 
>>>> Note that RFCs 9259, 9350, 9351, and 9352 are also part of this cluster but have already been published.
>>>> 
>>>> You may track the progress of all documents in this cluster through AUTH48 at:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C447
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 1) Please review instances of "Locator" and "locator" (not prefaced with
>>>> "SRv6"), and let us know if any updates are needed.
>>>> 
>>>> Both documents use the capitalized form for "SRv6 Locator", "SRv6 Locator
>>>> LSA", and "SRv6 Locator TLV". Unless you indicate otherwise, we will leave these as is.
>>> 
>>> KT> The existing usage looks good to me.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Some notes:
>>>> 
>>>> - RFC 9350 (already published in this cluster) uses the lowercase "SRv6
>>>> locator" and "locator", except in the context of "SRv6 Locator prefix" and
>>>> "SRv6 Locator TLV".
>>>> - RFC 9352 (already published in this cluster) uses the capitalized "SRv6
>>>> Locator", but the lowercase "locator" is used when not prefaced by "SRv6".
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 2) Please review instances of the following and let us know if any updates are needed. We see "Endpoint behavior" used in RFC 8986. 
>>>> 
>>>> endpoint behavior 
>>>> Endpoint behavior 
>>>> Endpoint Behavior 
>>>> 
>>>> Note: We will use the capitalized form "Endpoint Behavior" in the context of
>>>> "Endpoint Behavior field" and "SRv6 Endpoint Behavior TLV" (defined in Section
>>>> 7.1 of RFC-to-be 9514).
>>> 
>>> KT> Agree
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ketan
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> RFC Editor/mc/rv
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>