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

[Madison Church <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ketan and Acee,

Thanks for letting us know that you didn’t receive our initial AUTH48 emails. We have reported this issue and it is being investigated. We have also forwarded an email with cluster questions that was sent the same day in case that was not received.

Note that you can also find emails for this document/cluster in the AUTH48 archive (see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/). I believe that Alice also mentioned this to Ketan when he dropped by the RFC Editor desk in Prague.

Thank you!
RFC Editor/mc

> On Nov 6, 2023, at 11:00 AM, Acee Lindem <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hey Madison, 
> 
> Somehow I missed this as well and I’m the document shepherd. I’ll let Ketan respond to the 10 points as document editor. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Acee
> 
>> On Nov 6, 2023, at 16:46, Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Madison,
>> 
>> This is the first time that I receive this email. This has happened to me before since I started using Gmail 😔
>> 
>> I guess my co-authors were waiting on me to respond as the editor.
>> 
>> I'll respond during this IETF week.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Ketan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, 6 Nov, 2023, 4:42 pm Madison Church, <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Greetings,
>> 
>> This is a friendly weekly reminder that this document awaits your attention. Please review the document-specific questions and AUTH48 announcement. Let us know if we can be of assistance as you begin the AUTH48 review process.
>> 
>> The AUTH48 status page of this document is viewable at:
>>   http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9513
>> 
>> The AUTH48 FAQs are available at:
>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/#auth48
>> 
>> We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> RFC Editor/mc
>> 
>> > On Oct 30, 2023, at 7:02 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>> > 
>> > 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
>> 
>