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

[[e-mail]]

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)
-->


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.

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].
-->


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].  
-->


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.
-->


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).
-->


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].      
-->


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.
-->


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. 


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].


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].


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.
-->


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. -->


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 
-->


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.
-->


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