Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9502 <draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo-16> for your review

[Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>]

Hi Peter, 

See one inline. 

> On Oct 26, 2023, at 08:46, Peter Psenak <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> please see inline (##PP):
> 
> On 26/10/2023 01:05, [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] For clarity, should the D-flag point to the "up/down bit"
>> as was done in RFC 9352?  In addition, should Reserved be defined?
>> Original:
>>                     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
>>                    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>                    |D|  Reserved   |
>>                    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>          D-flag: When the Prefix is leaked from level-2 to level-1, the
>>          D bit MUST be set.  Otherwise, this bit MUST be clear.
>>          Prefixes with the D bit set MUST NOT be leaked from level-1 to
>>          level-2.  This is to prevent looping.
>>> From RFC 9352:
>>    D-flag: "up/down bit" as described in Section 4.1 of [RFC5305].
> 
> ##PP
> please update as proposed.
> 
>> -->
>> 2) <!-- [rfced] To match the rest of the list, should a definition for
>> "Optional sub-TLVs (variable length)" be included?
> 
> ##PP
> yes, please add it.
> 
>> Current:
>>    Algorithm (1 octet):  Associated Algorithm from 128 to 255.
>>    Prefix Len (1 octet):  Prefix length measured in bits.
>>    Prefix (variable length):  Prefix mapped to Flex-Algorithm.
>>    Optional Sub-TLV-length (1 octet):  Number of octets used by sub-TLVs
>>    Optional sub-TLVs (variable length)
>> -->
>> 3) <!-- [rfced] Please note that we moved the ruler over one space, so the
>> numbers appear over the hyphens.  Please let us know if any corrections are
>> needed.
>> Updated Figure 5:
>>      0                   1                   2                   3
>>      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>     |              Type             |             Length            |
>>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>     |       MT-ID   |  Algorithm    |     Flags     |     Reserved  |
>>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>     |                          Metric                               |
>>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> Updated Figure 6:
>>      0                   1                   2                   3
>>      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>     |              Type             |             Length            |
>>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>     |                     Forwarding Address                        |
>>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> -->
> 
> ##PP
> Ack.
> 
>> 4) <!-- [rfced] Please clarify how "and the ASBR is reachable in" relates to
>> the rest of the sentence. Would the following text provide clarity while
>> retaining the original meaning?
> 
> ##PP
> each ASBR may be reachable in no/some/all flex-algorithms that ABR participates in. ABR only advertises ASBR (including IPFAAM Sub-TLVs) in the particular flex-algorithm if (a) ABR participates in it AND (b) ASBR is reachable in it.
> 
>> Original:
>>    An OSPF ABR MUST include the OSPF IPFAAM Sub-TLVs as part of the ASBR
>>    reachability advertisement between areas for every IP Flex-Algorithm
>>    in which it participates and the ASBR is reachable in. >
>> Perhaps:
>>    An OSPF ABR MUST include the OSPF IPFAAM Sub-TLVs as part of the ASBR
>>    reachability advertisement between the areas for every IP
>>    Flex-Algorithm it participates in and the ASBR it is reachable in.
> 
> ##PP
> I'm fine with the change.

I may be reading this out of context but since this is an ASBR reachability advertisement, why is the clause “and the ASBR it is reachable in” needed. What is “it” referring to in the clause? 

Thanks,
Acee



> 
>> -->
>> 5) <!-- [rfced] Note that we lowercased n and y to match what appears in the
>> IANA registry.  Please let us know any objections.
> 
> ##PP
> no objection.
> 
>> Current in Table 3:
>>  IIH | LSP | SNP | Purge
>> +=====+=====+=====+=======+
>> | n   | y   | n   | n     |
>> ...
>> | n   | y   | n   | n     |
>> -->
>> 6) <!-- [rfced] We have updated the Description to match what appears in the
>> IANA registry (see https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml#isis-tlv-codepoints-advertising-prefix-reachability).
>> Please let us know if any corrections are needed.
> 
> ##PP
> Ack.
>> Original:
>>    Flex-Algorithm Prefix Metric
>> Current:
>>    Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric (FAPM)
>> -->
>> 7) <!-- [rfced] It appears as though there are more recent versions of this
>> document available.  Is the reference to Release 16.4.0 correct or should the
>> reference be updated to point to a more recent version?
> 
> ##PP
> please use the latest version.
> 
>> See https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=3144.
>> Current:
>>    [TS.23.501-3GPP]
>>               3GPP, "System Architecture for 5G System", Release 16.4.0,
>>               3GPP TS 23.501, March 2020.
>> -->
>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Terminology
>> a) Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used
>> inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how they
>> may be made consistent.
>>    Flex-Algorithm
>>    Flex Algorithm
>>    flex-algo
>>    Flexible Algorithm
> 
> looking at rfc9350, it uses:
> 
> 1) Flex-Algorithm -  when referring to a numeric identifier in the range 128-255
> 
> 1) "Flexible Algorithm"  - everywhere else
> 
> Please see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9350.html#section-3
> 
>> b) Should "IP flex-algo prefixes" be "IP Flex-Algorithm Prefixes"? Please let
>> us know if any updates are needed.
> 
> ##PP
> please replace with "IP Algorithm Prefixes"
> 
>> c) Please confirm that "bit E" is desired, as opposed to "E bit" (similar to
>> "D bit" and "S bit").
>>    bit E -> E bit
> 
> ##
> please use "* bit" consistently for all bits
> 
>> d) It is unclear if "sub-TLV" (uncapitalized) is used for the generic noun
>> and "Sub-TLV" (capitalized) is used for the proper noun?
> 
> ##PP
> indeed, that is the intention.
> Please feel free to fix any that do  not match that.
> 
> 
> 
>> Please review and
>> let us know if any updates are needed.
>> Examples:
>> the sub-TLV space
>> this Sub-TLV
>> IP Algorithm Sub-TLV is a sub-TLV
>> Prefix Reachability Sub-TLV is a sub-TLV
>> IPFAAM Sub-TLV is a Sub-TLV
>> -->
>> 9) <!-- [rfced] Acronyms and their expansions: 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.
>> -->
> 
> ##PP
> looks correct.
> 
> thanks,
> Peter
> 
> 
>> 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 Oct 25, 2023, at 3:55 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>> Updated 2023/10/25
>> 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/rfc9502.xml
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502.html
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502.pdf
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502.txt
>> Diff file of the text:
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502-diff.html
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>> Diff of the XML:
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502-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/rfc9502.original.v2v3.xml
>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
>> only:
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9502.form.xml
>> Tracking progress
>> -----------------
>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9502
>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>> RFC Editor
>> --------------------------------------
>> RFC9502 (draft-ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo-16)
>> Title            : IGP Flexible Algorithms (Flex-Algorithm) In IP Networks
>> Author(s)        : W. Britto, S. Hegde, P. Kaneriya, R. Shetty, R. Bonica, P. Psenak
>> WG Chair(s)      : Acee Lindem, Christian Hopps
>> Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
>