Re: [auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 <draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-12> for your review

[Jeong-dong Ryoo <[e-mail]>]

Dear Lynne,

Thank you for the updates. They are all good to me. I hope the outstanding issue related to the removal of "MUST" will be finalized according to the response from our AD, John. 

Thanks again.

Best regards,

Jeong-dong
 



-----Original Message-----
From:  "Lynne Bartholomew" <[e-mail]>
To:     "Jeong-dong Ryoo" <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;  "John Scudder" <[e-mail]>; 
Cc:      <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;  "윤빈영" <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;  "RFC System" <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;  "Vishnu Pavan Beeram" <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>; 
Sent:  2022-07-16 (토) 09:14:14 (UTC+09:00)
Subject: *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 <draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-12> for your review

Dear Jeong-dong and *AD (John),

* John, per our process, we will need your approval for the removal of "MUST" in Section 4, Paragraph 2 (just after Figure 1).

Jeong-dong, thank you for your prompt reply!  We have updated this document per your notes below.

The latest files are posted here:

   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.txt
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.xml
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-rfcdiff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-auth48diff.html

   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-alt-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-xmldiff1.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-xmldiff2.html

Thanks again for your quick reply and help!

RFC Editor/lb

> On Jul 14, 2022, at 7:00 PM, Jeong-dong Ryoo <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Dear RFC Editor,
> 
> 
> Thank you for your email. 
> 
> Please, see my answers to your questions as follows:
> 
> 1) Thank you for the improvements you've done. I am ok with the changes.
> 
> 2) As you pointed out, I couldn't find the "MUST" as related to RFC 3209, either. I suggest the following change (removing MUST):
> 
> OLD:
> Per RFC
> 3209 [RFC3209], in order to achieve resource sharing during the
> signaling of these protecting LSPs, they MUST have the same Tunnel
> Endpoint Address (as part of their SESSION object). 
> 
> NEW:
> Per RFC
> 3209 [RFC3209], in order to achieve resource sharing during the
> signaling of these protecting LSPs, they have the same Tunnel
> Endpoint Address (as part of their SESSION object). 
> 
> 3) According to the definition and usage of the <aside> element, it looks like there will be no problem putting the "Note:" in the <aside> element. But, I don't know what the resulting text looks like if the <aside> element is used. Nevertheless, I should be ok as long as the text is there.
> 
> 4) Thank you for taking a close look at those reference documents as well. Both  expressions are understood to be the same. I would like to keep object names consistent in this document by making them all uppercase.
> 
> 5) Yes, it means "preemption status". I am fine with your suggestion.
> 
> 6) "SMP" in the "SMP protecting LSP" is not really necessary. Since we use "protecting  LSP" throughout this document except Section 5.6, please, replace "SMP protecting LSP" with "protecting LSP" in Section 5.6.    
> 
> 7) Sorry for the confusion. Suggestion #1 is correct.
> 
> 8) Your change is good.
> 
> 9) I am aware of the terms related to the "inclusive language" and tried not to use them. I don't think any changes are needed. 
> 
> 10) No objection. Thank you for the consistency check.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Jeong-dong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:  "" <[e-mail]>
> To:      <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>; 
> Cc:      <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>;   <[e-mail]>; 
> Sent:  2022-07-13 (수) 07:37:12 (UTC+09:00)
> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 <draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-12> for your review
> 
> Authors,
> 
> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) 
> the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
> 
> 1) <!-- [rfced] Abbreviated (running) title (.pdf output) and body of
> document:  Because this document and RFC 4872 state that they define
> extensions (i.e., more than one extension) for GMPLS signaling, we
> changed "extension" to "extensions" as noted below.  Please review,
> and let us know any concerns.
> 
> Original:
> GMPLS Extension for SMP
> ...
> 4.  Operation of SMP with GMPLS Signaling Extension . . . . . . .   5
> 5.  GMPLS Signaling Extension for SMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
> ...
> RFC 4872 [RFC4872] defines extension of Resource Reservation Protocol
> - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support Shared Mesh Restoration
> (SMR) mechanisms.
> 
> Currently:
> GMPLS Extensions for SMP
> ...
> 4.  Operation of SMP with GMPLS Signaling Extensions
> 5.  GMPLS Signaling Extensions for SMP
> ...
> RFC 4872 [RFC4872] defines extensions for Resource Reservation
> Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support Shared Mesh
> Restoration (SMR) mechanisms. -->
> 
> 
> 2) <!-- [rfced] Section 4:  We could not verify the "MUST" as related to
> RFC 3209.  Please verify that this text is correct and will be clear
> to readers.
> 
> Original:
> Per RFC
> 3209 [RFC3209], in order to achieve resource sharing during the
> signaling of these protecting LSPs, they MUST have the same Tunnel
> Endpoint Address (as part of their SESSION object). -->
> 
> 
> 3) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.2:  Please review whether this "Note:" item
> should be in the <aside> element.  <aside> is defined as "a container
> for content that is semantically less important or tangential to the
> content that surrounds it"
> (https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/xml2rfc-doc.html#name-aside-2).
> 
> Original:
> Note: N bit is set to indicate that the protection switching
> signaling is done via data plane. -->
> 
> 
> 4) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.3:  We see that RFC 3473 uses "Admin_Status"
> instead of "ADMIN_STATUS", while RFCs 4872 and 4873 use
> "ADMIN_STATUS".  However, RFC 4873 also uses "Admin_Status".  Will
> these distinctions be clear to readers?
> 
> Original:
> The formerly working LSP MAY be signaled with the A bit set in the
> ADMIN_STATUS object (see [RFC3473]). -->
> 
> 
> 5) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.4:  Does "preempted situation" mean
> "preemption status" or something else?  If the suggested text is not
> correct, please clarify.
> 
> Original:
> Once the working LSP and the
> protecting LSP are configured or pre-configured, the end node MUST
> keep refreshing both working and protecting LSPs regardless of
> failure or preempted situation.
> 
> Suggested:
> Once the working LSP and the
> protecting LSP are configured or preconfigured, the end node MUST
> keep refreshing both working and protecting LSPs, regardless of
> failure or preemption status. -->
> 
> 
> 6) <!-- [rfced] Section 5.6:  Do these four instances of "SMP protecting
> LSP" mean "SMP's protecting LSP", "protecting LSP for SMP", or
> something else?
> 
> Original:
> SMP relies on APS protocol messages being exchanged between the nodes
> along the path to activate an SMP protecting LSP.
> 
> In order to allow the exchange of APS protocol messages, an APS
> channel has to be configured between adjacent nodes along the path of
> the SMP protecting LSP.  This is done by other means than GMPLS
> signaling, before any SMP protecting LSP has been set up.  Therefore,
> there are likely additional requirements for APS configuration which
> are outside the scope of this document.
> 
> Depending on the APS protocol message format, the APS protocol may
> use different identifiers than GMPLS signaling to identify the SMP
> protecting LSP. -->
> 
> 
> 7) <!-- [rfced] Section 6.2:  We had trouble determining what is "only
> applicable" in this sentence, because of the comma after "1".  If
> neither suggestion below is correct, please clarify.
> 
> Original:
> The O bit is only
> applicable when the P bit is set to 1, and the LSP Protection Type
> Flag is set to 0x04 (1:N Protection with Extra-Traffic), 0x08 (1+1
> Unidirectional Protection), 0x10 (1+1 Bidirectional Protection),
> or 0x20 (Shared Mesh Protection).
> 
> Suggestion #1 (only applicable when (1) and (2) are applied):
> The O bit is only
> applicable when (1) the P bit is set to 1 and (2) the LSP Protection
> Type Flag is set to 0x04 (1:N Protection with Extra-Traffic), 0x08
> (1+1 Unidirectional Protection), 0x10 (1+1 Bidirectional
> Protection), or 0x20 (Shared Mesh Protection).
> 
> Suggestion #2 (only applicable when the P bit is set to 1):
> The O bit is only
> applicable when the P bit is set to 1.  Also, the LSP Protection
> Type Flag is set to 0x04 (1:N Protection with Extra-Traffic),
> 0x08 (1+1 Unidirectional Protection), 0x10 (1+1 Bidirectional
> Protection), or 0x20 (Shared Mesh Protection). -->
> 
> 
> 8) <!-- [rfced] Section 6.3:  This paragraph was difficult to follow;
> for example, "several fields from that field" reads oddly.  Also,
> the fourth sentence appeared to conflict with Section 1, Paragraph 1,
> last sentence of this document, as well as Section 9.2 of RFC 4873.
> We updated the text as follows.  Please review carefully, and let us
> know if anything is incorrect.
> 
> Original:
> [RFC4872] reserved a 32-bit field in the PROTECTION object header.
> Subsequently, [RFC4873] allocated several fields from that field, and
> left the remainder of the bits reserved.  This specification further
> allocates the preemption priority field from those formerly-reserved
> bits.  The 32-bit field in the PROTECTION object defined in [RFC4873]
> are updated as follows:
> 
> Currently (the subject-verb disagreement in the fourth sentence has
>   been corrected):
> [RFC4872] reserved a 32-bit field in the PROTECTION object header.
> Subsequently, [RFC4873] allocated several bits from that field and
> left the remainder of the bits reserved.  This specification further
> allocates the Preemption Priority field from the remaining formerly
> reserved bits.  The 32-bit field in the PROTECTION object as defined
> in [RFC4872] and modified by [RFC4873] is updated by this document as
> follows: -->
> 
> 
> 9) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the
> online Style Guide at
> <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 or phrases. -->
> 
> 
> 10) <!-- [rfced] The following terms were used inconsistently in this
> document.  We chose to use the latter forms.  Please let us know any
> objections.
> 
> LSP protection type / LSP Protection Type (per RFC 4872)
> 
> Protection Object / PROTECTION object (in text) (per RFC 4872,
>  with one exception, which appears to be an oversight) -->
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> RFC Editor
> 
> 
> On Jul 12, 2022, at 3:32 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> *****IMPORTANT*****
> 
> Updated 2022/07/12
> 
> 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/rfc9270.xml
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.html
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.pdf
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.txt
> 
> Diff file of the text:
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-diff.html
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
> 
> For your convenience, we have also created an alt-diff file that will 
> allow you to more easily view changes where text has been deleted or 
> moved:
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-alt-diff.html
> 
> Diff of the XML: 
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-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/rfc9270.original.v2v3.xml 
> 
> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
> only: 
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270.form.xml
> 
> 
> Tracking progress
> -----------------
> 
> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9270
> 
> Please let us know if you have any questions.  
> 
> Thank you for your cooperation,
> 
> RFC Editor
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC9270 (draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-12)
> 
> Title            : GMPLS Signaling Extensions for Shared Mesh Protection
> Author(s)        : J. He, I. Busi, J. Ryoo, B. Yoon, P. Park
> WG Chair(s)      : Vishnu Pavan Beeram, Lou Berger
> 
> Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
> 
> 
> 
>