Re: [auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 <draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-12> for your review

[Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>]

Dear Jeong-dong,

We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page:

   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9270

Thank you very much!

RFC Editor/lb

> On Jul 18, 2022, at 6:09 PM, Jeong-dong Ryoo <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Dear Lynne,
> 
> Thank you for the updates. They are all good to me. I hope the outstanding issue related to the removal of "MUST" will be finalized according to the response from our AD, John. 
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Jeong-dong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:  "Lynne Bartholomew" <[e-mail]>
> To:     "Jeong-dong Ryoo" <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;  "John Scudder" <[e-mail]>; 
> Cc:      <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;  "윤빈영" <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;  "RFC System" <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;  "Vishnu Pavan Beeram" <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>; 
> Sent:  2022-07-16 (토) 09:14:14 (UTC+09:00)
> Subject: *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 <draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-12> for your review
> 
> Dear Jeong-dong and *AD (John),
> 
> * John, per our process, we will need your approval for the removal of "MUST" in Section 4, Paragraph 2 (just after Figure 1).
> 
> Jeong-dong, thank you for your prompt reply!  We have updated this document per your notes below.
> 
> The latest files are posted here:
> 
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.txt
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.pdf
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.xml
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-diff.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-rfcdiff.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-auth48diff.html
> 
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-alt-diff.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-xmldiff1.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-xmldiff2.html
> 
> Thanks again for your quick reply and help!
> 
> RFC Editor/lb
> 
>> On Jul 14, 2022, at 7:00 PM, Jeong-dong Ryoo <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear RFC Editor,
>> 
>> 
>> Thank you for your email. 
>> 
>> Please, see my answers to your questions as follows:
>> 
>> 1) Thank you for the improvements you've done. I am ok with the changes.
>> 
>> 2) As you pointed out, I couldn't find the "MUST" as related to RFC 3209, either. I suggest the following change (removing MUST):
>> 
>> OLD:
>> Per RFC
>> 3209 [RFC3209], in order to achieve resource sharing during the
>> signaling of these protecting LSPs, they MUST have the same Tunnel
>> Endpoint Address (as part of their SESSION object). 
>> 
>> NEW:
>> Per RFC
>> 3209 [RFC3209], in order to achieve resource sharing during the
>> signaling of these protecting LSPs, they have the same Tunnel
>> Endpoint Address (as part of their SESSION object). 
>> 
>> 3) According to the definition and usage of the <aside> element, it looks like there will be no problem putting the "Note:" in the <aside> element. But, I don't know what the resulting text looks like if the <aside> element is used. Nevertheless, I should be ok as long as the text is there.
>> 
>> 4) Thank you for taking a close look at those reference documents as well. Both  expressions are understood to be the same. I would like to keep object names consistent in this document by making them all uppercase.
>> 
>> 5) Yes, it means "preemption status". I am fine with your suggestion.
>> 
>> 6) "SMP" in the "SMP protecting LSP" is not really necessary. Since we use "protecting  LSP" throughout this document except Section 5.6, please, replace "SMP protecting LSP" with "protecting LSP" in Section 5.6.    
>> 
>> 7) Sorry for the confusion. Suggestion #1 is correct.
>> 
>> 8) Your change is good.
>> 
>> 9) I am aware of the terms related to the "inclusive language" and tried not to use them. I don't think any changes are needed. 
>> 
>> 10) No objection. Thank you for the consistency check.
>> 
>> Thank you.
>> 
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Jeong-dong
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:  "" <[e-mail]>
>> To:      <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>; 
>> Cc:      <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>; 
>> Sent:  2022-07-13 (수) 07:37:12 (UTC+09:00)
>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 <draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-12> 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] Abbreviated (running) title (.pdf output) and body of
>> document:  Because this document and RFC 4872 state that they define
>> extensions (i.e., more than one extension) for GMPLS signaling, we
>> changed "extension" to "extensions" as noted below.  Please review,
>> and let us know any concerns.
>> 
>> Original:
>> GMPLS Extension for SMP
>> ...
>> 4.  Operation of SMP with GMPLS Signaling Extension . . . . . . .   5
>> 5.  GMPLS Signaling Extension for SMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
>> ...
>> RFC 4872 [RFC4872] defines extension of Resource Reservation Protocol
>> - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support Shared Mesh Restoration
>> (SMR) mechanisms.
>> 
>> Currently:
>> GMPLS Extensions for SMP
>> ...
>> 4.  Operation of SMP with GMPLS Signaling Extensions
>> 5.  GMPLS Signaling Extensions for SMP
>> ...
>> RFC 4872 [RFC4872] defines extensions for Resource Reservation
>> Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support Shared Mesh
>> Restoration (SMR) mechanisms. -->
>> 
>> 
>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Section 4:  We could not verify the "MUST" as related to
>> RFC 3209.  Please verify that this text is correct and will be clear
>> to readers.
>> 
>> Original:
>> Per RFC
>> 3209 [RFC3209], in order to achieve resource sharing during the
>> signaling of these protecting LSPs, they MUST have the same Tunnel
>> Endpoint Address (as part of their SESSION object). -->
>> 
>> 
>> 3) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.2:  Please review whether this "Note:" item
>> should be in the <aside> element.  <aside> is defined as "a container
>> for content that is semantically less important or tangential to the
>> content that surrounds it"
>> (https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/xml2rfc-doc.html#name-aside-2).
>> 
>> Original:
>> Note: N bit is set to indicate that the protection switching
>> signaling is done via data plane. -->
>> 
>> 
>> 4) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.3:  We see that RFC 3473 uses "Admin_Status"
>> instead of "ADMIN_STATUS", while RFCs 4872 and 4873 use
>> "ADMIN_STATUS".  However, RFC 4873 also uses "Admin_Status".  Will
>> these distinctions be clear to readers?
>> 
>> Original:
>> The formerly working LSP MAY be signaled with the A bit set in the
>> ADMIN_STATUS object (see [RFC3473]). -->
>> 
>> 
>> 5) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.4:  Does "preempted situation" mean
>> "preemption status" or something else?  If the suggested text is not
>> correct, please clarify.
>> 
>> Original:
>> Once the working LSP and the
>> protecting LSP are configured or pre-configured, the end node MUST
>> keep refreshing both working and protecting LSPs regardless of
>> failure or preempted situation.
>> 
>> Suggested:
>> Once the working LSP and the
>> protecting LSP are configured or preconfigured, the end node MUST
>> keep refreshing both working and protecting LSPs, regardless of
>> failure or preemption status. -->
>> 
>> 
>> 6) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.6:  Do these four instances of "SMP protecting
>> LSP" mean "SMP's protecting LSP", "protecting LSP for SMP", or
>> something else?
>> 
>> Original:
>> SMP relies on APS protocol messages being exchanged between the nodes
>> along the path to activate an SMP protecting LSP.
>> 
>> In order to allow the exchange of APS protocol messages, an APS
>> channel has to be configured between adjacent nodes along the path of
>> the SMP protecting LSP.  This is done by other means than GMPLS
>> signaling, before any SMP protecting LSP has been set up.  Therefore,
>> there are likely additional requirements for APS configuration which
>> are outside the scope of this document.
>> 
>> Depending on the APS protocol message format, the APS protocol may
>> use different identifiers than GMPLS signaling to identify the SMP
>> protecting LSP. -->
>> 
>> 
>> 7) <!-- [rfced] Section 6.2:  We had trouble determining what is "only
>> applicable" in this sentence, because of the comma after "1".  If
>> neither suggestion below is correct, please clarify.
>> 
>> Original:
>> The O bit is only
>> applicable when the P bit is set to 1, and the LSP Protection Type
>> Flag is set to 0x04 (1:N Protection with Extra-Traffic), 0x08 (1+1
>> Unidirectional Protection), 0x10 (1+1 Bidirectional Protection),
>> or 0x20 (Shared Mesh Protection).
>> 
>> Suggestion #1 (only applicable when (1) and (2) are applied):
>> The O bit is only
>> applicable when (1) the P bit is set to 1 and (2) the LSP Protection
>> Type Flag is set to 0x04 (1:N Protection with Extra-Traffic), 0x08
>> (1+1 Unidirectional Protection), 0x10 (1+1 Bidirectional
>> Protection), or 0x20 (Shared Mesh Protection).
>> 
>> Suggestion #2 (only applicable when the P bit is set to 1):
>> The O bit is only
>> applicable when the P bit is set to 1.  Also, the LSP Protection
>> Type Flag is set to 0x04 (1:N Protection with Extra-Traffic),
>> 0x08 (1+1 Unidirectional Protection), 0x10 (1+1 Bidirectional
>> Protection), or 0x20 (Shared Mesh Protection). -->
>> 
>> 
>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Section 6.3:  This paragraph was difficult to follow;
>> for example, "several fields from that field" reads oddly.  Also,
>> the fourth sentence appeared to conflict with Section 1, Paragraph 1,
>> last sentence of this document, as well as Section 9.2 of RFC 4873.
>> We updated the text as follows.  Please review carefully, and let us
>> know if anything is incorrect.
>> 
>> Original:
>> [RFC4872] reserved a 32-bit field in the PROTECTION object header.
>> Subsequently, [RFC4873] allocated several fields from that field, and
>> left the remainder of the bits reserved.  This specification further
>> allocates the preemption priority field from those formerly-reserved
>> bits.  The 32-bit field in the PROTECTION object defined in [RFC4873]
>> are updated as follows:
>> 
>> Currently (the subject-verb disagreement in the fourth sentence has
>>  been corrected):
>> [RFC4872] reserved a 32-bit field in the PROTECTION object header.
>> Subsequently, [RFC4873] allocated several bits from that field and
>> left the remainder of the bits reserved.  This specification further
>> allocates the Preemption Priority field from the remaining formerly
>> reserved bits.  The 32-bit field in the PROTECTION object as defined
>> in [RFC4872] and modified by [RFC4873] is updated by this document as
>> follows: -->
>> 
>> 
>> 9) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the
>> online Style Guide at
>> <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 or phrases. -->
>> 
>> 
>> 10) <!-- [rfced] The following terms were used inconsistently in this
>> document.  We chose to use the latter forms.  Please let us know any
>> objections.
>> 
>> LSP protection type / LSP Protection Type (per RFC 4872)
>> 
>> Protection Object / PROTECTION object (in text) (per RFC 4872,
>> with one exception, which appears to be an oversight) -->
>> 
>> 
>> Thank you.
>> 
>> RFC Editor
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 12, 2022, at 3:32 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>> 
>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>> 
>> Updated 2022/07/12
>> 
>> 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/rfc9270.xml
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.html
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.pdf
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.txt
>> 
>> Diff file of the text:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-diff.html
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>> 
>> For your convenience, we have also created an alt-diff file that will 
>> allow you to more easily view changes where text has been deleted or 
>> moved:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-alt-diff.html
>> 
>> Diff of the XML: 
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-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/rfc9270.original.v2v3.xml 
>> 
>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
>> only: 
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.form.xml
>> 
>> 
>> Tracking progress
>> -----------------
>> 
>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9270
>> 
>> Please let us know if you have any questions.  
>> 
>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>> 
>> RFC Editor
>> 
>> --------------------------------------
>> RFC9270 (draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-12)
>> 
>> Title            : GMPLS Signaling Extensions for Shared Mesh Protection
>> Author(s)        : J. He, I. Busi, J. Ryoo, B. Yoon, P. Park
>> WG Chair(s)      : Vishnu Pavan Beeram, Lou Berger
>> 
>> Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>