Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9491 <draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-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. "the" has been added before "Network Service Header".

Original:
   Integration of Network Service Header (NSH) and Segment Routing for
   Service Function Chaining (SFC)

Current:
   Integration of the Network Service Header (NSH) and Segment Routing for
   Service Function Chaining (SFC)
-->


2) <!--[rfced] For clarity, may we change "while" to "whereas" here? This
would make it clear that the intended meaning is a contrast rather than
"at the same time".

Original:
   Combining these technologies allows SR to be used for steering
   packets between Service Function Forwarders (SFF) along a given
   Service Function Path (SFP) while NSH has the responsibility for
   maintaining the integrity of the service plane, the SFC instance
   context, and any associated metadata.

Perhaps:
   Combining these technologies allows SR to be used for steering
   packets between Service Function Forwarders (SFFs) along a given
   Service Function Path (SFP), whereas the NSH is responsible for
   maintaining the integrity of the service plane, the SFC instance
   context, and any associated metadata.
-->


3) <!--[rfced] As this document expands "SFC" as "Service Function Chaining",
should "SFC" be updated to "service function chain" in the instances below?

Original:
   The two SR data plane encapsulations, namely SR-MPLS [RFC8660] and
   SRv6 [RFC8754], can both encode an SF as a segment so that an SFC can
   be specified as a segment list.
   ...
   *  SR-based SFC with integrated NSH service plane: in this scenario
      each service hop of the SFC is represented as a segment of the SR
      segment-list.
   ...      
   Referring to Figure 1, packets of flow F in DC1 are classified into
   an NSH-based SFC and encapsulated after classification as <Inner
   Pkt><NSH: SPI 100, SI 255><Outer-transport> and forwarded to SFF1
   (which is the first SFF hop for this service function chain).      

Perhaps:
   The two SR data plane encapsulations, namely SR-MPLS [RFC8660] and
   SRv6 [RFC8754], can encode an SF as a segment so that a service function
   chain can be specified as a segment list.
   ...
   SR-based SFC with integrated NSH service plane:
      In this scenario, each service hop of the service function chain is
      represented as a segment of the SR segment list.
   ...
   Referring to Figure 1, packets of flow F in DC1 are classified into
   an NSH-based service function chain, encapsulated after classification as
   <Inner Pkt><NSH: SPI 100, SI 255><Outer-transport>, and forwarded to SFF1
   (which is the first SFF hop for this service function chain).      
-->   


4) <!--[rfced] May we update this sentence for clarity?

Original:
   A classifier MUST use an NSH Service Path Identifier (SPI) per SR
   policy so that different traffic flows that use the same NSH Service
   Function Path (SFP) but different SR policy can coexist on the same
   SFP without conflict during SFF processing.

Perhaps:
   A classifier MUST use one NSH Service Path Identifier (SPI) for each
   SR policy so that different traffic flows can use the same NSH Service
   Function Path (SFP) and different SR policies can coexist on the same
   SFP without conflict during SFF processing.
-->   


5) <!-- [rfced] FYI, we removed the extraneous comma on line 7 of Figure 4. Please
let us know if there are any objections.

Original:
   |N(100,255) | ... |N(100,253) |                                       ,

Current:
   |N(100,255) | ... |N(100,253) |
-->


6) <!--[rfced] In Section 5.2, we have formatted text as sourcecode and
set the type attribute to "pseudocode" to reflect what appears in
Section 4.3.1.1 of RFC 8754. Please review to ensure correctness.
-->


7) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether the following note should be in
the <aside> element. It 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 End.NSH behavior interrupts the normal SRH packet
   processing as described in [RFC8754] section 4.3.1.1, which does not
   continue to S16 at this time.
-->	


8) <!--[rfced] Should Table 2 be updated to include the Hex and Change Controller
columns to match what appears in the "SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors” registry (see
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/segment-routing/segment-routing.xhtml>)?
-->


9) <!-- [rfced] This text indicates the affiliations (and authors) provided
valuable input and text contributions. Is this as intended? Or was it the
authors only (not the affiliations) that contributed this way?

Original:
   The following co-authors, along with their respective affiliations at
   the time of publication, provided valuable inputs and text contributions
   to this document.
-->


10) <!-- [rfced] Terminology

a) Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used
inconsistently. We have updated to use "Prefix-SID" to reflect usage
in previously published RFCs. Please let us know of any objections.

   prefix SID vs. Prefix SID vs. prefix-SID vs. Prefix-SID 

b) We note that "SF-SFF" and "SFF-SFF" are both used in this document. Are
these abbreviations both used for the same term? Or are they two different
terms?

c) We note that Figure 5 contains "MPLS-SR", while the text defines
"SR-MPLS". May update to "SR-MPLS" to reflect usage in previously published
RFCs?
-->


11) <!-- [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.

   Media Access Control (MAC)
   SR over IPv6 (SRv6)
   Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP)
-->


12) <!-- [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.

For example, please consider whether "master" should be updated.
-->


Thank you.

RFC Editor/st/ap

On Oct 3, 2023, at 4:38 PM, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2023/10/03

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/rfc9491.xml
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491.txt

Diff file of the text:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491-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/rfc9491.original.v2v3.xml 

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
only: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9491.form.xml


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9491

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9491 (draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-15)

Title            : Integration of Network Service Header (NSH) and Segment Routing for Service Function Chaining (SFC)
Author(s)        : J. Guichard, Ed., J. Tantsura, Ed.
WG Chair(s)      : Bruno Decraene, Alvaro Retana, Joel M. Halpern

Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston