Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9491 <draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-15> for your review

[James Guichard <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sarah,

Please see inline ..

-----Original Message-----
From: Sarah Tarrant <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2023 11:00 AM
To: James Guichard <[e-mail]>; Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; RFC Editor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9491 <draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-15> 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] Please note that the title of the document has been updated as follows. "the" has been added before "Network Service Header".
>>
>> Original:
>> Integration of Network Service Header (NSH) and Segment Routing for
>> Service Function Chaining (SFC)
>>
>> Current:
>> Integration of the Network Service Header (NSH) and Segment Routing
>> for Service Function Chaining (SFC)
>> -->

Jim> Thank you this change is fine.

>>
>>
>> 2) <!--[rfced] For clarity, may we change "while" to "whereas" here?
>> This would make it clear that the intended meaning is a contrast
>> rather than "at the same time".
>>
>> Original:
>> Combining these technologies allows SR to be used for steering
>> packets between Service Function Forwarders (SFF) along a given
>> Service Function Path (SFP) while NSH has the responsibility for
>> maintaining the integrity of the service plane, the SFC instance
>> context, and any associated metadata.
>>
>> Perhaps:
>> Combining these technologies allows SR to be used for steering
>> packets between Service Function Forwarders (SFFs) along a given
>> Service Function Path (SFP), whereas the NSH is responsible for
>> maintaining the integrity of the service plane, the SFC instance
>> context, and any associated metadata.
>> -->
>>

Jim> This change is fine.

>>
>> 3) <!--[rfced] As this document expands "SFC" as "Service Function
>> Chaining", should "SFC" be updated to "service function chain" in the instances below?
>>
>> Original:
>> The two SR data plane encapsulations, namely SR-MPLS [RFC8660] and
>> SRv6 [RFC8754], can both encode an SF as a segment so that an SFC can
>> be specified as a segment list.
>> ...
>> *  SR-based SFC with integrated NSH service plane: in this scenario
>>    each service hop of the SFC is represented as a segment of the SR
>>    segment-list.
>> ...
>> Referring to Figure 1, packets of flow F in DC1 are classified into
>> an NSH-based SFC and encapsulated after classification as <Inner
>> Pkt><NSH: SPI 100, SI 255><Outer-transport> and forwarded to SFF1
>> (which is the first SFF hop for this service function chain).
>>
>> Perhaps:
>> The two SR data plane encapsulations, namely SR-MPLS [RFC8660] and
>> SRv6 [RFC8754], can encode an SF as a segment so that a service
>> function chain can be specified as a segment list.
>> ...
>> SR-based SFC with integrated NSH service plane:
>>    In this scenario, each service hop of the service function chain is
>>    represented as a segment of the SR segment list.
>> ...
>> Referring to Figure 1, packets of flow F in DC1 are classified into
>> an NSH-based service function chain, encapsulated after
>> classification as <Inner Pkt><NSH: SPI 100, SI 255><Outer-transport>, and forwarded to SFF1
>> (which is the first SFF hop for this service function chain).
>> -->

Jim> I think SFC is fine as it is defined in the terminology. No need to expand it here.

>>
>>
>> 4) <!--[rfced] May we update this sentence for clarity?
>>
>> Original:
>> A classifier MUST use an NSH Service Path Identifier (SPI) per SR
>> policy so that different traffic flows that use the same NSH Service
>> Function Path (SFP) but different SR policy can coexist on the same
>> SFP without conflict during SFF processing.
>>
>> Perhaps:
>> A classifier MUST use one NSH Service Path Identifier (SPI) for each
>> SR policy so that different traffic flows can use the same NSH
>> Service Function Path (SFP) and different SR policies can coexist on
>> the same SFP without conflict during SFF processing.
>> -->
>>

Jim> This change is fine.

>>
>> 5) <!-- [rfced] FYI, we removed the extraneous comma on line 7 of
>> Figure 4. Please let us know if there are any objections.
>>
>> Original:
>> |N(100,255) | ... |N(100,253) |                                       ,
>>
>> Current:
>> |N(100,255) | ... |N(100,253) |
>> -->
>>

Jim> No objection.

>>
>> 6) <!--[rfced] In Section 5.2, we have formatted text as sourcecode
>> and set the type attribute to "pseudocode" to reflect what appears in
>> Section 4.3.1.1 of RFC 8754. Please review to ensure correctness.
>> -->
>>

Jim> This looks fine thank you.

>>
>> 7) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether the following note should be in
>> the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container for content that
>> is semantically less important or tangential to the content that
>> surrounds it" (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside).
>>
>> Original:
>> Note: The End.NSH behavior interrupts the normal SRH packet
>> processing as described in [RFC8754] section 4.3.1.1, which does not
>> continue to S16 at this time.
>> -->

Jim> This is fine.

>>
>>
>> 8) <!--[rfced] Should Table 2 be updated to include the Hex and
>> Change Controller columns to match what appears in the "SRv6 Endpoint
>> Behaviors" registry (see <https://www.iana.org/assignments/segment-routing/segment-routing.xhtml>)?
>> -->

Jim> Yes I believe so.

>>
>>
>> 9) <!-- [rfced] This text indicates the affiliations (and authors)
>> provided valuable input and text contributions. Is this as intended?
>> Or was it the authors only (not the affiliations) that contributed this way?
>>
>> Original:
>> The following co-authors, along with their respective affiliations at
>> the time of publication, provided valuable inputs and text
>> contributions to this document.
>> -->
>>

Jim> It was the authors only and I think the affiliations text can be removed.

>>
>> 10) <!-- [rfced] Terminology
>>
>> a) Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used
>> inconsistently. We have updated to use "Prefix-SID" to reflect usage
>> in previously published RFCs. Please let us know of any objections.
>>
>> prefix SID vs. Prefix SID vs. prefix-SID vs. Prefix-SID

Jim> No objection.

>>
>> b) We note that "SF-SFF" and "SFF-SFF" are both used in this
>> document. Are these abbreviations both used for the same term? Or are
>> they two different terms?

Jim> Two different terms. SF-SFF -> Service Function - Service Function Forwarder. SFF-SFF -> Service Function Forwarder - Service Function Forwarder.

>>
>> c) We note that Figure 5 contains "MPLS-SR", while the text defines
>> "SR-MPLS". May update to "SR-MPLS" to reflect usage in previously
>> published RFCs?

Jim> Yes, good catch and thank you.

>> -->
>>
>>
>> 11) <!-- [rfced] FYI - 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.
>>
>> Media Access Control (MAC)
>> SR over IPv6 (SRv6)
>> Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP)
>> -->
>>
Jim> these are correct.

>>
>> 12) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of
>> the online Style Guide
>> <https://ww/
>> w.rfc-editor.org%2Fstyleguide%2Fpart2%2F%23inclusive_language&data=05
>> %7C01%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7Ce95d1d864a874ba95eb908dbd1
>> 7d3a5f%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C63833410803483488
>> 8%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI
>> 6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TpHKkMASxqKohlUCPcwliwT
>> JCxGfHV4GX5oKjh3ThlQ%3D&reserved=0>
>> and let us know if any changes are needed.
>>
>> For example, please consider whether "master" should be updated.
>> -->

Jim> Yes, "master" should be updated.

Jim
>>
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> RFC Editor/st/ap
>>
>> On Oct 3, 2023, at 4:38 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>
>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>
>> Updated 2023/10/03
>>
>> 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://mai/
>> larchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fietf-announce%2Fyb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe
>> 6P8O4Zc&data=05%7C01%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7Ce95d1d864a8
>> 74ba95eb908dbd17d3a5f%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C63
>> 8334108034991139%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoi
>> V2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ysV6%2Bu
>> mYT9A%2FG95oqnpSCbPrbO0SOoH%2F%2BdpiFeI3Ue4%3D&reserved=0
>>
>>   *  The archive itself:
>>
>> https://mai/
>> larchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fbrowse%2Fauth48archive%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cj
>> ames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7Ce95d1d864a874ba95eb908dbd17d3a5f%7C
>> 0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638334108034991139%7CUnkno
>> wn%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwi
>> LCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VBzzAU2%2FxyOxCtpWG5XINUlXLaSSbz
>> Mqwc6dmAFt1Jw%3D&reserved=0
>>
>>   *  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%2Fauthors%2Frfc9491.xml&data=05%7C01%7Cjames.n.guicha
>> rd%40futurewei.com%7Ce95d1d864a874ba95eb908dbd17d3a5f%7C0fee8ff2a3b24
>> 0189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638334108034991139%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZs
>> b3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3
>> D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ww5o3dbzTMRz5Vl05Td%2Felyyo4lXDMN3t1lKNoM1iB8
>> %3D&reserved=0
>> https://www/
>> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9491.html&data=05%7C01%7Cjames.n.guich
>> ard%40futurewei.com%7Ce95d1d864a874ba95eb908dbd17d3a5f%7C0fee8ff2a3b2
>> 40189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638334108034991139%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZ
>> sb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%
>> 3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=23cLeELxeNO0DNly6%2BSttIB3JiMeENLrlLINtTDHJE
>> A%3D&reserved=0
>> https://www/
>> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9491.pdf&data=05%7C01%7Cjames.n.guicha
>> rd%40futurewei.com%7Ce95d1d864a874ba95eb908dbd17d3a5f%7C0fee8ff2a3b24
>> 0189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638334108034991139%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZs
>> b3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3
>> D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=5DNNZkA3f7PtFUJ2dED3KbLF4EitXZQsvCcqGhJd7kE%3
>> D&reserved=0
>> https://www/
>> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9491.txt&data=05%7C01%7Cjames.n.guicha
>> rd%40futurewei.com%7Ce95d1d864a874ba95eb908dbd17d3a5f%7C0fee8ff2a3b24
>> 0189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638334108034991139%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZs
>> b3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3
>> D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=zdMXXERbJW6a%2Bj0lOPortXUBCIIcHCf%2F6Ku3JIZ3R
>> bg%3D&reserved=0
>>
>> Diff file of the text:
>> https://www/
>> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9491-diff.html&data=05%7C01%7Cjames.n.
>> guichard%40futurewei.com%7Ce95d1d864a874ba95eb908dbd17d3a5f%7C0fee8ff
>> 2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638334108034991139%7CUnknown%7CTW
>> FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI
>> 6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Kr6IVY7ATSXPV8ewO4g%2B9a289SIVMpdJuwn43
>> 6v8Z34%3D&reserved=0
>> https://www/
>> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9491-rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C01%7Cjames
>> .n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7Ce95d1d864a874ba95eb908dbd17d3a5f%7C0fee
>> 8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638334108034991139%7CUnknown%7
>> CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJX
>> VCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=7aTszu%2Fb5JGJRPBXfvHtztcNCNNwOxSrOs
>> J2bK4LEHE%3D&reserved=0 (side by side)
>>
>> Diff of the XML:
>> https://www/
>> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9491-xmldiff1.html&data=05%7C01%7Cjame
>> s.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7Ce95d1d864a874ba95eb908dbd17d3a5f%7C0fe
>> e8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638334108034991139%7CUnknown%
>> 7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJ
>> XVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=EN9RVjop0479sB%2FoI1NFk%2F21ctDu2OQ
>> k9pnYK5xR%2FDQ%3D&reserved=0
>>
>> 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%2Fauthors%2Frfc9491.original.v2v3.xml&data=05%7C01%7C
>> james.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7Ce95d1d864a874ba95eb908dbd17d3a5f%7
>> C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638334108034991139%7CUnkn
>> own%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWw
>> iLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Jq1mZBuyyA%2BpevdJtldglmz5fk%2B
>> 1jsvBZZrmZSNq1yY%3D&reserved=0
>>
>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
>> only:
>> https://www/
>> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9491.form.xml&data=05%7C01%7Cjames.n.g
>> uichard%40futurewei.com%7Ce95d1d864a874ba95eb908dbd17d3a5f%7C0fee8ff2
>> a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638334108034991139%7CUnknown%7CTWF
>> pbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6
>> Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WK6f82FcC%2BektacJLIILkR47BlAO%2FF41b8pl
>> s9qvxIE%3D&reserved=0
>>
>>
>> Tracking progress
>> -----------------
>>
>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>> https://www/
>> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9491&data=05%7C01%7Cjames.n.guichard%40
>> futurewei.com%7Ce95d1d864a874ba95eb908dbd17d3a5f%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c
>> 753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638334108034991139%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8e
>> yJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3
>> 000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=w%2Bi39nlyYVCPIX8XqbMn%2BAcexQ5mPKSfHu8J37HPW0A%3D
>> &reserved=0
>>
>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>>
>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>>
>> RFC Editor
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> RFC9491 (draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-15)
>>
>> Title            : Integration of Network Service Header (NSH) and Segment Routing for Service Function Chaining (SFC)
>> Author(s)        : J. Guichard, Ed., J. Tantsura, Ed.
>> WG Chair(s)      : Bruno Decraene, Alvaro Retana, Joel M. Halpern
>>
>> Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
>>
>>
>