Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9302 <draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-14> 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 insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in 
the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->


2) <!-- [rfced] RFC 6834 says the following:

   It is not meant to replace any
   existing LISP mechanisms but rather to extend them by providing new
   functionalities.

Should this text indicate that it updates the extensions or functionalities, rather than the mechanisms? 

Original: 
   This document obsoletes RFC 6834 "Locator/ID Separation Protocol
   (LISP) Map-Versioning", which is the initial experimental
   specifications of the mechanisms updated by this document.

Original: 
   This document obsoletes [RFC6834], which is the initial experimental
   specifications of the mechanisms updated by this document.
-->


3) <!-- [rfced]  In the following, to what does "it" and "both" refer?  
Is it "Map-Versioning" or "the information"?  Because there are two uses 
and the text refers to "both cases", we suggest using updating this text 
to clearly separate the uses (e.g., perhaps use <ol> or <ul>).  

Original:
   When Map-Versioning is used, LISP-encapsulated data packets contain
   the version number of the two mappings used to select the RLOCs in
   the outer header (i.e., both source and destination RLOCs).  This
   information has two uses.  On the one hand, it enables the ETR
   (Egress Tunnel Router) receiving the packet to know if the ITR
   (Ingress Tunnel Router) is using the latest mapping version for the
   destination EID.  If this is not the case, the ETR can directly send
   a Map-Request containing the updated mapping to the ITR, to notify it
   of the latest version.  The ETR can also solicit the ITR to trigger a
   Map-Request to obtain the latest mapping by sending it a Solicit Map-
   Request (SMR) message.  Both cases are defined in
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].  On the other hand, it enables an ETR
   receiving such a packet to know if it has in its EID-to-RLOC Map-
   Cache the latest mapping for the source EID.  If this is not the
   case, a Map-Request can be sent.
-->


4) <!--[rfced] May we update instances of "Dest Map-Version number" to "Destination Map-Version number" to reflect usage in RFC 6834? Note that 
this document has 2 instances of "Destination Map-Version number" and 14 
instances of "Dest Map-Version number".

Original:
   Dest Map-Version number:  Map-Version of the mapping in the EID-to-
     RLOC Map-Cache used by the ITR to select the RLOC present in the
     "Destination Routing Locator" field of the outer IP header of LISP-
     encapsulated packets (Section 7.1).
-->


5) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, may we update this text as follows?

Original:
   The ordering enables reacting differently to
   "older" and "newer" Map-Version number, discarding the packet in the
   former case and triggering a Map-Request in the latter (see Section 7
   for further details).

Perhaps:
   The ordering enables different reactions to
   "older" and "newer" Map-Version numbers, whereby "older" numbers are 
   discarded and "newer" numbers trigger Map-Requests (see Section 7
   for further details).
-->


6) <!-- [rfced] Do you want to use superscript (<sup>) here?

Original: 
        V2 > V1 AND (V2 - V1) <= 2**(12-1)

         OR

         V1 > V2 AND (V1 - V2) > 2**(12-1)

<sup> would display as follows in the text:
         V2 > V1 AND (V2 - V1) <= 2^(12-1)

         OR

         V1 > V2 AND (V1 - V2) > 2^(12-1)

(12-1) would display as superscript in HTML and PDF.
-->


7) <!-- [rfced] Is it the LISP site that assigns a new Map-Version number? 

Original: 
   The main idea of using Map-Version numbers is that whenever there is
   a change in the mapping (e.g., adding/removing RLOCs, a change in the
   weights due to Traffic Engineering policies, or a change in the
   priorities) or a LISP site realizes that one or more of its own RLOCs
   are not reachable anymore from a local perspective (e.g., through
   IGP, or policy changes) the LISP site updates the mapping, also
   assigning a new Map-Version number.

Perhaps:
   The main idea of using Map-Version numbers is that whenever there is
   a change in the mapping (e.g., adding/removing RLOCs, a change in the
   weights due to Traffic Engineering policies, or a change in the
   priorities) or a LISP site realizes that one or more of its own RLOCs
   are no longer reachable from a local perspective (e.g., through IGP
   or policy changes), the LISP site updates the mapping and also assigns
   a new Map-Version number.
-->


8) <!-- [rfced] Is mapping intended to be singular or plural here? 

Original:
   To this end simple measures can be
   taken, like updating a mapping only when all active traffic is using
   the latest version, or waiting sufficient time to be sure that
   mapping in LISP caches expire, which means waiting at least as much
   as the mapping Time-To-Live (as defined in
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]).

Perhaps:
   To this end, simple measures can be taken, like
   updating a mapping only when all active traffic is using the latest
   version, or waiting a sufficient amount of time to be sure that the
   mapping in LISP caches expires, which means waiting at least as long
   as the mapping Time To Live (TTL) (as defined in [RFC9301]).
-->


9) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble parsing this sentence.  Should the second instance of "ignoring the Source Map-Version number" be deleted?  

Original:
   The ETR checks only the Dest Map-Version number, ignoring the Source
   Map-Version number as specified in the final sentence of Section 7.2,
   ignoring the Source Map-Version number.
-->


10) <!-- [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.
-->


Thank you.

RFC Editor


On Sep 12, 2022, at 9:33 PM, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2022/09/12

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/rfc9302.xml
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.txt

Diff file of the text:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302-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/rfc9302.original.v2v3.xml 

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
only: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.form.xml


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

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9302

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9302 (draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-14)

Title            : Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning
Author(s)        : L. Iannone, D. Saucez, O. Bonaventure
WG Chair(s)      : Joel M. Halpern, Luigi Iannone
Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston