Re: [auth48] [Cluster447] AUTH48 Questions: RFC 9513 <draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-15> and RFC 9514 <draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-14>

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Madison,

Thanks for fixing that - I agree and this is consistent with RFC8986.

Thanks,
Ketan


On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 4:32 AM Madison Church <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Ketan,
>
> We also wanted to point out that we lowercased “locator” in the following
> sentences in both documents per your guidance; for consistency, we also
> lowercased for “function” and “argument”. Let us know any concerns.
>
> Original (RFC-to-be 9513):
>   An SRv6 Segment Identifier (SID) is 128 bits and consists of Locator,
>   Function, and Argument parts as described in [RFC8986].
>
> Original (RFC-to-be 9514):
>   As specified in [RFC8986], an SRv6 SID comprises Locator, Function
>   and Argument parts.
>
> Current (RFC-to-be 9513):
>   An SRv6 SID is 128 bits and consists of locator, function, and
>   argument parts as described in [RFC8986].
>
> Current (RFC-to-be 9514):
>   As specified in [RFC8986], an SRv6 SID comprises locator, function,
>   and argument parts.
>
> Thank you,
> RFC Editor/mc
>
> > On Nov 17, 2023, at 12:30 PM, Madison Church <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ketan,
> >
> > Thank you for the clarification! We have made updates to RFC 9513 and
> RFC 9514 accordingly.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > RFC Editor/mc
> >
> >> On Nov 17, 2023, at 7:33 AM, Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Madison,
> >>
> >> Please check inline below.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 3:26 AM Madison Church <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >> Hi Ketan,
> >>
> >> Thank you for reviewing these cluster-wide questions! We have some
> followups below.
> >>
> >>>> 1) Please review instances of "Locator" and "locator" (not prefaced
> with
> >>>> "SRv6"), and let us know if any updates are needed.
> >>>>
> >>>> Both documents use the capitalized form for "SRv6 Locator", "SRv6
> Locator
> >>>> LSA", and "SRv6 Locator TLV". Unless you indicate otherwise, we will
> leave these as is.
> >>>
> >>> KT> The existing usage looks good to me.
> >>
> >> To clarify, we see both “Locator” (capped) and “locator” (lowercase)
> used in the documents. Is one form preferred? Both documents use the
> capitalized form when prefaced with “SRv6”; that is, both use "SRv6
> Locator”. However, when not prefaced with “SRv6”, the capitalization
> varies. Here are some examples:
> >>
> >> 9513:
> >>  Each locator is a covering
> >>  prefix for all SIDs provisioned on that router that have the matching
> >>  algorithm.
> >>
> >>  Forwarding entries for the locators advertised in ...
> >>
> >> 9514:
> >>  A node is provisioned with one or more Locators supported by that
> >>  node.
> >>
> >>  Each Locator is advertised as a BGP-LS Prefix NLRI
> >>  object along with the SRv6 Locator TLV in its BGP-LS Attribute.
> >>
> >> KT> Perhaps we should just follow the convention from RFC 9352 which
> capitalizes Locator only when referencing a TLV or when preceded with SRv6?
> >>
> >>
> >>>> 2) Please review instances of the following and let us know if any
> updates are needed. We see "Endpoint behavior" used in RFC 8986.
> >>>>
> >>>> endpoint behavior
> >>>> Endpoint behavior
> >>>> Endpoint Behavior
> >>>>
> >>>> Note: We will use the capitalized form "Endpoint Behavior" in the
> context of
> >>>> "Endpoint Behavior field" and "SRv6 Endpoint Behavior TLV" (defined
> in Section
> >>>> 7.1 of RFC-to-be 9514).
> >>>
> >>> KT> Agree
> >>
> >> To clarify, we see the following forms used in general text (not in
> context of "Endpoint Behavior field" and "SRv6 Endpoint Behavior TLV”):
> >>
> >> endpoint behavior
> >> Endpoint behavior
> >> Endpoint Behavior
> >>
> >> Is one of these forms preferred? Here are some examples:
> >>
> >> KT> Here too, let us follow RFC9352 which is also more or less
> consistent with RFC8986 - so "Endpoint behavior".
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Ketan
> >>
> >> 9513:
> >>  The endpoint behavior code point
> >>  for this SRv6 SID as defined in [RFC8986].
> >>
> >>  The Maximum Segments Left MSD Type signals the maximum value of the
> >>  Segments Left field of the SRH of a received packet before applying
> >>  the Endpoint behavior associated with a SID.
> >>
> >>  The Maximum Segments Left MSD Type signals the maximum value of the
> >>  Segments Left field of the SRH of a received packet before applying
> >>  the Endpoint behavior associated with a SID.
> >>
> >> 9514:
> >>  The Endpoint Behavior code point
> >>  for this SRv6 SID as defined in Section 10.2 of [RFC8986].
> >>
> >>  *  The endpoint behavior of the SRv6 SID is advertised via the SRv6
> >>     Endpoint Behavior TLV (Section 7.1).
> >>
> >>  When advertising the SRv6 SIDs corresponding to the BGP EPE
> >>  functionality, the Endpoint Behavior corresponds to End.X and similar
> >>  behaviors.
> >>
> >> Thank you!
> >> RFC Editor/mc
> >>
> >>> On Nov 7, 2023, at 4:46 PM, Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Madison,
> >>>
> >>> Please check inline below for responses.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 8:47 PM Madison Church <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> We are forwarding the Cluster 447 email in case it was not received on
> your end when it was initially sent.
> >>>
> >>> Thank you!
> >>> RFC Editor/mc
> >>>
> >>>> Begin forwarded message:
> >>>>
> >>>> From: [e-mail]
> >>>> Subject: [Cluster447] AUTH48 Questions: RFC 9513
> <draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-srv6-extensions-15> and RFC 9514
> <draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext-14>
> >>>> Date: October 30, 2023 at 7:15:34 PM CDT
> >>>> To: "[e-mail]"@gmail.com, [e-mail],
> [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
> [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
> [e-mail]
> >>>> Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
> [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
> [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
> [e-mail]
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi authors,
> >>>>
> >>>> While reviewing this cluster of documents*, please reply to the
> questions
> >>>> below regarding consistency across the cluster. These questions are in
> >>>> addition to the document-specific questions sent for each RFC-to-be.
> Your
> >>>> reply will likely impact both documents in the cluster, so
> >>>> please discuss off-list as necessary, and then let us know how to
> >>>> proceed. Note - You have the option of updating the edited XML files
> yourself,
> >>>> if you prefer.  We will wait to hear from you before continuing with
> the
> >>>> publication process.
> >>>>
> >>>> * Cluster 447 (C447) currently in AUTH48 state:
> >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9513.html
> >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9514.html
> >>>> (In addition, the .pdf, .txt, .xml, and diff files are available.)
> >>>>
> >>>> Note that RFCs 9259, 9350, 9351, and 9352 are also part of this
> cluster but have already been published.
> >>>>
> >>>> You may track the progress of all documents in this cluster through
> AUTH48 at:
> >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C447
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) Please review instances of "Locator" and "locator" (not prefaced
> with
> >>>> "SRv6"), and let us know if any updates are needed.
> >>>>
> >>>> Both documents use the capitalized form for "SRv6 Locator", "SRv6
> Locator
> >>>> LSA", and "SRv6 Locator TLV". Unless you indicate otherwise, we will
> leave these as is.
> >>>
> >>> KT> The existing usage looks good to me.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Some notes:
> >>>>
> >>>> - RFC 9350 (already published in this cluster) uses the lowercase
> "SRv6
> >>>> locator" and "locator", except in the context of "SRv6 Locator
> prefix" and
> >>>> "SRv6 Locator TLV".
> >>>> - RFC 9352 (already published in this cluster) uses the capitalized
> "SRv6
> >>>> Locator", but the lowercase "locator" is used when not prefaced by
> "SRv6".
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 2) Please review instances of the following and let us know if any
> updates are needed. We see "Endpoint behavior" used in RFC 8986.
> >>>>
> >>>> endpoint behavior
> >>>> Endpoint behavior
> >>>> Endpoint Behavior
> >>>>
> >>>> Note: We will use the capitalized form "Endpoint Behavior" in the
> context of
> >>>> "Endpoint Behavior field" and "SRv6 Endpoint Behavior TLV" (defined
> in Section
> >>>> 7.1 of RFC-to-be 9514).
> >>>
> >>> KT> Agree
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Ketan
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you,
> >>>> RFC Editor/mc/rv
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>