Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9552 <draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-17> for your review

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

Thanks for your help with this document. Please check inline below for
responses.


On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 7:45 AM <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Ketan,
>
> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary)
> 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] In the sentence below, does "that requires CPU-intensive
> or coordinated computations" refer to "Path Computation Element (CPE)"?
>
> Original:
>    The IETF has defined the Path Computation Element (PCE) [RFC4655] as
>    a mechanism for achieving the computation of end-to-end TE paths that
>    cross the visibility of more than one TED or that requires CPU-
>    intensive or coordinated computations.
>
> Perhaps:
>    The IETF has defined the Path Computation Element (PCE) [RFC4655] as
>    a mechanism for achieving the computation of end-to-end TE paths that
>    cross the visibility of more than one TED. The PCE also requires CPU-
>    intensive or coordinated computations.
> -->
>

KT> The original text is more appropriate. The "cross the visibility of
more than one TED"  and "requires CPU-intensive or coordinated
computations" are the two OR clauses referring to "the computation of
end-to-end TE paths".


>
>
> 3) <!--[rfced] We do not see any mentions of "loose-hop-expansion" in
> RFC 3209. We note that the document includes instances of "loose hop",
> but there are no occurrences of "expansion". Please review and let us
> know if the citation requires any updates.
>
> Original:
>    Per-domain path
>    computation uses a technique called "loose-hop-expansion" [RFC3209]
>    and selects the exit ABR and other ABRs or AS Border Routers (ASBRs)
>    using the IGP-computed shortest path topology for the remainder of
>    the path.
> -->
>

KT> How about the following:
Per-domain path
computation selects the exit ABR and other ABRs or AS Border Routers (ASBRs)
as loose-hops [RFC3209] and using the IGP-computed shortest path topology
for the
remainder of the path.


>
>
> 4) <!--[rfced] May we update the commas in this list as follows?
>
> Original:
>    (2) a BGP
>    path attribute (BGP-LS Attribute) that carries properties of the
>    link, node, or prefix objects such as the link and prefix metric or
>    auxiliary Router-IDs of nodes, etc.
>
> Perhaps:
>    (2) a BGP
>    path attribute (BGP-LS Attribute) that carries properties of the
>    link, node, or prefix objects such as the link and prefix metric,
>    auxiliary Router-IDs of nodes, etc.
> -->
>

KT> Yes


>
>
> 5) <!-- [rfced] Tables 3 and 18 have entries for the following:
>
>    513         | BGP-LS Identifier (deprecated)
>
> Should the entry be marked as deprecated in the IANA registry <
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml#node-descriptor-link-descriptor-prefix-descriptor-attribute-tlv>?
>
> -->
>

KT> Yes


>
>
> 6) <!--[rfced] The sentences below read awkwardly with "direct or static".
> Please review and let us know if/how they may be updated.
>
> Original:
>    This is a mandatory TLV when
>    originating information from IS-IS, OSPF, direct or static.
>    ...
>    When the node is running an IGP protocol,
>    an implementation MAY choose to use the IGP Router-ID for direct
>    or static.
>
> Perhaps:
>    This is a mandatory TLV when
>    originating information from IS-IS, OSPF, 'Direct', or 'Static
>    configuration'.
>    ...
>    When the node is running an IGP protocol,
>    an implementation MAY choose to use the IGP Router-ID for 'Direct'
>    or 'Static configuration'.
> -->
>

KT> Looks better indeed.


>
>
> 7) <!-- [rfced] There is a slight difference between the sections
> referenced in Tables 5 and 18.  The reference in the IANA registry matches
> what appears in Table 18.  Should the section references be updated for
> consistency?  Perhaps they should match what appears Table 5?
>
> Table 5 (Section 5.2.3):
>    |      264       | OSPF Route Type           |    1     | Section   |
>    |                |                           |          | 5.2.3.1   |
>    |      265       | IP Reachability           | variable | Section   |
>    |                | Information               |          | 5.2.3.2   |
>
>
> Table 18 (Section 9):
>      |      264       | OSPF Route Type         | Section 5.2.3     |
>      |      265       | IP Reachability         | Section 5.2.3     |
>      |                | Information             |                   |
> -->
>

KT> Good catch. Table 5 is indeed correct and the others have wrong section
references for these TLVs.


>
>
> 8) <!--[rfced] We note that Figure 13 includes a field called "Route
> Type". Should "OSPF" be removed from this text that precedes Figure 13?
>
> Original:
>    The OSPF Route Type field follows the route types defined in the OSPF
>    protocol and can be one of the following:
>
> Perhaps:
>    The Route Type field follows the route types defined in the OSPF
>    protocol and can be one of the following:
> -->
>

KT> We could not fit "OSPF Route Type" in that figure with the 8-bit width
and hence it was abbreviated to "Route Type". We can use "Route Type" in
the text as well to be consistent.


>
>
> 9) <!-- [rfced] The following appears in Table 7:
>
>    | 'T' | Attached Bit | [ISO10589] |
>
> The following appears in Table 14:
>
>    |  1  | Attached Bit (A-bit) |  RFC 9552 |
>
> Should Table 7 be updated to reflect 'A' in the Bit column?
> -->
>

KT> Yes


>
>
> 10) <!--[rfced] To parallel the fields of other figures, should "Opaque
> node attributes" and "Opaque link attributes" be capitalized in
> Figures 18 and 23, respectively?
>
> Original:
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      //               Opaque node attributes (variable)             //
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>                   Figure 18: Opaque Node Attribute Format
>
>
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      //                Opaque link attributes (variable)            //
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>                 Figure 23: Opaque Link Attribute TLV Format
> -->
>

KT> Yes


>
>
> 11) <!--[rfced] Should the parentheses around "SRLG" proceeding "IPv4"
> be removed to parallel "SRLG" proceeding "IPv6"?
>
> Original:
>    In IS-IS, the SRLG
>    information is carried in two different TLVs: the IPv4 (SRLG) TLV
>    (Type 138) defined in [RFC5307] and the IPv6 SRLG TLV (Type 139)
>    defined in [RFC6119].
>
> Perhaps:
>    In IS-IS, the SRLG
>    information is carried in two different TLVs: the IPv4 SRLG TLV
>    (Type 138) defined in [RFC5307] and the IPv6 SRLG TLV (Type 139)
>    defined in [RFC6119].
> -->
>

KT> Actually these are the GMPLS-SRLG TLV (for IPv4) (Type 138) defined in
[RFC5307] and the IPv6 SRLG TLV (Type 139) defined in [RFC6119].


>
>
> 12) <!--[rfced] We note that the "local address" bit listed in RFC 5340
> lists the bit value as "LA-bit". Should "L" (Table 11) be updated to
> "LA-bit"?
> -->
>

KT> Not needed. We can keep as is since they are separate protocols (BGP-LS
and OSPF) and this is a bis RFC.


>
>
> 13) <!--[rfced] May we update instances of "Extened IGP Route Tag" to be
> "IGP Extened Route Tag" to reflect the defined code point in IANA's
> "BGP-LS NLRI and Attribute TLVs" registry? If yes, these updates will
> be made in Section 5.3.3.3.
> -->


KT> Yes.


>
>
>
> 14) <!--[rfced] May we update the sentence below to improve readability?
>
> Original:
>    An originating router shall use this TLV for encoding information
>    specific to the protocol advertised in the NLRI header Protocol-ID
>    field or new protocol extensions to the protocol as advertised in the
>    NLRI header Protocol-ID field for which there is no protocol-neutral
>    representation in the BGP Link-State NLRI.
>
> Perhaps:
>    An originating router shall use this TLV for encoding information
>    specific to the protocol advertised in the NLRI header Protocol-ID
>    field or it shall use new protocol extensions for the protocol as
>    advertised in the NLRI header Protocol-ID field for which there is no
>    protocol-neutral representation in the BGP Link-State NLRI.
> -->
>

KT> Yes


>
>
> 15) <!--[rfced] FYI, we've updated "E-AS-External-Prefix-LSA" to
> "E-AS-External-LSA" to match what appears in Section 4.5 of RFC 8362.
> Please let us know of any concerns.
>
> Original:
>    In the case of OSPFv3, this
>    TLV MUST NOT be used to advertise TLVs other than those in the OSPFv3
>    E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA, E-Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA, E-AS-External-
>    Prefix-LSA, and E-NSSA-LSA [RFC8362].
>
> Current:
>    In the case of OSPFv3, this
>    TLV MUST NOT be used to advertise TLVs other than those in the OSPFv3
>    E-Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA, E-Intra-Area-Prefix-LSA, E-AS-External-LSA,
>    and E-NSSA-LSA [RFC8362].
> -->
>

KT> Yes


>
>
> 16) <!--[rfced] May we update this sentence as follows for clarity?
>
> Original:
>    Consider a point-to-point link between two routers, A and B, that
>    initially were OSPFv2-only routers and then IS-IS is enabled on them.
>
> Perhaps:
>    Consider a point-to-point link between two routers, A and B, which
>    initially were OSPFv2-only routers and then had IS-IS enabled on them.
> -->
>

KT> Yes


>
>
> 17) <!-- [rfced] Terminology
>
> a) Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used
> inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how they
> may be made consistent.
>
> Broadcast LAN / broadcast LAN
> Multi-Topology ID / Multi-Topology Identifier
> Node Name / node name
> Route Reflector / route reflector
>

KT> The 2nd one (on the right) for all of the above


>
> b) To parallel RFC 7752, may we update the following terms to the ones
> listed on the left.
>
> link-local IPv6 address / IPv6 link-local address
> path attribute length / Path Attribute Length
>

KT> The 2nd ones (on the right) are more appropriate


>
> c) FYI, we made the following terms capitalized for consistency to parallel
> other BGP terminology. Please review and let us know if further updates
> are necessary.
>
> BGP Attribute
> BGP Decision Process
> BGP Next-Hop
>  -> does this always refer to the attribute?
>

KT> Only in sec 5.5 where it correct to capitalize it.


> BGP Speaker
>
> BGP-LS Attribute
> BGP-LS Speaker
> -->
>

KT> Yes


>
>
> 18) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for the following
> abbreviations per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please
> review each expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness.
>
> Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA)
> Provider Edge (PE)
> RSVP - Fast Reroute (RSVP-FRR)
> -->
>

KT> Yes


>
>
> 19) <!-- [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> Ack

Thanks,
Ketan


>
>
> Thank you.
>
> RFC Editor
>
> On Dec 15, 2023, at 6:10 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>
> *****IMPORTANT*****
>
> Updated 2023/12/15
>
> 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/rfc9552.xml
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552.pdf
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552.txt
>
> Diff file of the text:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552-diff.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>
> Diff of the XML:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552-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/rfc9552.original.v2v3.xml
>
> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
> only:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9552.form.xml
>
>
> Tracking progress
> -----------------
>
> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9552
>
> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>
> Thank you for your cooperation,
>
> RFC Editor
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC9552 (draft-ietf-idr-rfc7752bis-17)
>
> Title            : Distribution of Link-State and Traffic Engineering
> Information Using BGP
> Author(s)        : K. Talaulikar, Ed.
> WG Chair(s)      : Susan Hares, Keyur Patel, Jeffrey Haas
>
> Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
>
>
>