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

[Italo Busi <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lynne

I approve the document for publication in its current form.

Thanks, Italo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>
> Sent: venerdì 5 agosto 2022 21:05
> To: Hejia (Jia) <[e-mail]>; Italo Busi <[e-mail]>;
> 윤빈영 <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Cc: John Scudder <[e-mail]>; Jeong-dong Ryoo <[e-mail]>; teas-
> [e-mail]; RFC System <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270 <draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-12>
> for your review
> 
> Dear Jia, Italo, Bin, and Peter,
> 
> We do not believe that we have heard from you regarding this document's
> readiness for publication.
> 
> Please review the updated files, and let us know whether further changes are
> needed or you approve the document for publication in its current form.
> 
> 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-alt-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-xmldiff1.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9270-xmldiff2.html
> 
> The AUTH48 status page is here:
> 
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9270
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> RFC Editor/lb
> 
> > On Jul 22, 2022, at 2:17 PM, Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, John.  We have noted your approval:
> >
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9270
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> > RFC Editor/lb
> >
> >> On Jul 21, 2022, at 8:29 AM, John Scudder <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Lynne,
> >>
> >>> On Jul 15, 2022, at 8:13 PM, Lynne Bartholomew
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 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).
> >>
> >> Yes, this change is fine, thanks for checking.
> >>
> >> —John
> >
> 
> > From: Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Re: *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9270
> > <draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-12> for your review
> > Date: July 19, 2022 at 12:55:55 PM PDT
> > To: Jeong-dong Ryoo <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail], John Scudder <[e-mail]>,
> > [e-mail], [e-mail], 윤빈영 <[e-mail]>,
> > [e-mail], RFC System <[e-mail]>,
> > [e-mail], Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]>,
> > [e-mail]
> >
> > Dear Jeong-dong,
> >
> > We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page:
> >
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9270
> >
> > Thank you very much!
> >
> > RFC Editor/lb
> >
> >> On Jul 18, 2022, at 6:09 PM, Jeong-dong Ryoo <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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" <rfc-editor@rfc-
> editor.org>;   <[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]>;   <teas-
> [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-4Q9l2US
> >>> xIAe6P8O4Zc
> >>>
> >>>  *  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
> >>>
> >>>