Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9437 <draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-15> 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] For ease of the reader, should a citation to RFC 9300 be 
added where xTR is introduced? 

Original:
   LISP uses a map and encapsulate
   (a.k.a., map-and-encap) approach that relies on (1) a Mapping System
   (basically a distributed database) that stores and disseminates EID-
   RLOC mappings and on (2) LISP tunnel routers (xTRs) that encapsulate
   and decapsulate data packets based on the content of those mappings.
-->


2) <!-- [rfced] Does "at least" refer to the amount being ensured or the 
amount of information required?  

Original:
    However, the Map-
   Resolvers and Map-Servers need to be configured with the required
   information to at least ensure the following:

If the latter, perhaps:
   However, the Map-
   Resolvers and Map-Servers need to be configured with at least
   the required information to ensure the following:
-->


3) <!-- [rfced] We note that only Section 5.7 mentions "Map-Notify". Please
review the citation to Section 5.5 of [RFC9301] and let us know if/how
this citation should be updated.

Original:
   The Map-Server builds the Map-Notify according to
   Sections 5.5 and 5.7 of [RFC9301] with the following considerations:
-->


4) <!-- [rfced] Please consider adding a definition or reference for "ACT 
bits".  This is not a commonly used term in RFCs.  Will this be clear for readers? 

 RFC 8200 doesn't specifically refer to ACT bits, but it includes the following: 
   The Option Type identifiers are internally encoded such that their
   highest-order 2 bits specify the action that must be taken if the
   processing IPv6 node does not recognize the Option Type:

Original (this doc):
   If the Map-Server removes the subscription
   state, and absent explicit policy, it SHOULD notify the xTR by
   sending a single Map-Notify with the same nonce but with Loc-Count =
   0 (and Loc-AFI = 0), and ACT bits set to 5 "Drop/Auth-Failure".
-->


5) <!-- [rfced] Do the parentheses in "(Negative) Map-Reply" indicate 
"Map-Reply or Negative Map-Reply" or something else? Please let us know 
how we may update for clarity.

In addition, we suggest removing "based on this Map-Notify", as it seems 
redundant with "if the xTR receives a Negative Map-Reply".  Please review 
the suggested text below. 

Original:
   The xTR processes any (Negative) Map-Reply as specified in
   Section 8.1 of [RFC9301], with the following considerations: if the
   xTR receives a Negative Map-Reply with ACT bits set to 4 "Drop/
   Policy-Denied" or 5 "Drop/Auth-Failure" as a response to a
   subscription request, it is OPTIONAL for the xTR to update its map-
   cache entry for the EID-Prefix (if any) based on this Negative Map-
   Reply.

Perhaps:
   The xTR processes any Map-Reply or Negative Map-Reply as specified in
   Section 8.1 of [RFC9301], with the following considerations: if the 
   xTR receives a Negative Map-Reply with ACT bits set to 4 "Drop/
   Policy-Denied" or 5 "Drop/Auth-Failure" as a response to a
   subscription request, it is OPTIONAL for the xTR to update its map-
   cache entry for the EID-Prefix (if any).                   
-->


6) <!-- [rfced] Please clarify "configured with the initial nonce to use".  Does this mean "configured to use the initial nonce"?

Original:
   If at the time the explicit subscription is configured
   there is no nonce that can be used for the explicit subscription
   state (e.g., from a different subscription already established with
   the same xTR when a single nonce is kept per xTR-ID), then both the
   xTR and Map-Server MUST be configured with the initial nonce to use.
-->


7) <!-- [rfced] To clarify, is it the "Map-Request" that is asking "to 
remove a subscription"? If so, may we update as follows?

Original:
   If the Map-Server receives a Map-Request asking to remove a
   subscription for an EID-Prefix without subscription state for that
   xTR-ID, but covered by a less-specific EID-Prefix for which
   subscription state exists for the xTR-ID, the Map-Server SHOULD stop
   publishing updates about this more-specific EID-Prefix to that xTR,
   until the xTR subscribes to the more-specific EID-Prefix. 

Suggested:
   If the Map-Server receives a Map-Request asking to remove a
   subscription for an EID-Prefix without subscription state for that
   xTR-ID and it is covered by a less specific EID-Prefix for which
   subscription state exists for the xTR-ID, the Map-Server SHOULD stop
   publishing updates about this more specific EID-Prefix to that xTR
   until the xTR subscribes to the more specific EID-Prefix. 
-->


8) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble parsing this sentence.  Should "and" 
appear between "received" and "to update"?  Please clarify. 

Original:
   When the xTR receives a Map-Notify with an EID not local to the xTR,
   the xTR knows that the Map-Notify has been received to update an
   entry on its Map-Cache.

Perhaps:
   When the xTR receives a Map-Notify with an EID that is not local to the 
   xTR, the xTR knows that the Map-Notify was received and to update an
   entry on its Map-Cache.
-->


9) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble parsing "not to keep full past OTKs".  

Original:
   Note that a Map-Server implementation might decide to not
   keep full past OTKs and instead use some form of hash. 

Perhaps A:
   Note that a Map-Server implementation may decide not
   to keep a full list of past OTKs and instead use some form of hash. 

Perhaps B: 
   Note that a Map-Server implementation may decide not to keep track
   of all past OTKs and instead use some form of hash. 
-->


10) <!-- [rfced] Would it be accurate to replace "Review requests" with "Allocation requests"? 

Original: 
   Review requests are evaluated on the advice of one or more designated
   experts.

In addition, may we update this sentence for readability? 

Original: 
   Criteria that should be applied by the designated experts
   include determining whether the proposed registration duplicates
   existing entries and whether the registration description is
   sufficiently detailed and fits the purpose of this registry.  These
   criteria are considered in addition to those already provided in
   Section 4.6 of [RFC8126] (e.g., the proposed registration must be
   documented in a permanent and readily available public
   specification).

Perhaps:
   Designated experts should consider whether the proposed registration 
   duplicates existing entries and whether the registration description is
   sufficiently detailed and fits the purpose of this registry.  These
   criteria are to be considered in addition to those provided in
   Section 4.6 of [RFC8126] (e.g., the proposed registration "must be
   documented in a permanent and readily available public
   specification").
-->


11) <!-- [rfced] Should "redistributed" be "redistribute"?  Otherwise, please clarify.

Original:
   Third, a routing
   protocol (e.g., BGP) can be used to redistributed LISP prefixes from
   the Map-Servers to a border router, but this comes with some
   implications, particularly the Map-Servers needs to implement an
   additional protocol which consumes resources and needs to be properly
   configured. 
-->


12) <!-- [rfced] We had trouble knowing whether "it" is referring to 
"mapping" or "cache". Does our suggested text retain the original meaning?

Original:
   The problem with very long Map-Cache TTL is that (in the
   absence of PubSub) if a mapping changes, but it is not being used,
   the cache remains but it is stale.

Perhaps:
   The problem with a very long Map-Cache TTL is that (in the
   absence of PubSub) if a mapping changes but is not being used,
   the cache remains but is stale.
-->


13) <!-- [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 Jun 26, 2023, at 10:49 PM, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2023/06/26

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/rfc9437.xml
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9437.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9437.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9437.txt

Diff file of the text:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9437-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9437-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9437-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/rfc9437.original.v2v3.xml 

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
only: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9437.form.xml


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

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9437

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9437 (draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-15)

Title            : Publish/Subscribe Functionality for the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
Author(s)        : A. Rodriguez-Natal, V. Ermagan, A. Cabellos, S. Barkai, M. Boucadair
WG Chair(s)      : Joel M. Halpern, Luigi Iannone
Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston