Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9302 <draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-14> for your review

[Luigi IANNONE <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I had a look at the latest diff and it looks all good to me.

Thanks for your work.

Ciao

L.
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, 14 September 2022 00:51
> To: Luigi IANNONE <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9302 <draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-14> for your
> review
> 
> Hi Luigi,
> 
> Thank you for your reply.  We have updated as requested.
> 
> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.xml
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.txt
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.html
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.pdf
> 
> The relevant diff files have been posted here:
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302-auth48diff.html (AUTH48
> changes)
> 
> Please review the document carefully and contact us with any further
> updates you may have.  Note that we do not make changes once a
> document is published as an RFC.
> 
> We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status page
> below prior to moving this document forward in the publication process.
> 
> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9302
> 
> Thank you,
> RFC Editor/ap
> 
> > On Sep 13, 2022, at 4:24 AM, Luigi IANNONE
> <luigi.iannone=[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thank you very much for this review,
> > See comments inline.
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 13 September 2022 06:37
> >> To: Luigi IANNONE <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail];
> >> [e-mail]
> >> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> >> [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> >> [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9302 <draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-14> 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 insert any keywords (beyond those that appear
> >> in the
> >> title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
> >>
> >>
> >> 2) <!-- [rfced] RFC 6834 says the following:
> >>
> >>   It is not meant to replace any
> >>   existing LISP mechanisms but rather to extend them by providing new
> >>   functionalities.
> >>
> >> Should this text indicate that it updates the extensions or
> >> functionalities, rather than the mechanisms?
> >
> > Can be simplified to:
> >
> > It is not meant to replace any existing LISP mechanism, rather providing
> new functionalities.
> >
> > Better?
> >
> >>
> >> Original:
> >>   This document obsoletes RFC 6834 "Locator/ID Separation Protocol
> >>   (LISP) Map-Versioning", which is the initial experimental
> >>   specifications of the mechanisms updated by this document.
> >>
> >> Original:
> >>   This document obsoletes [RFC6834], which is the initial experimental
> >>   specifications of the mechanisms updated by this document.
> >> -->
> > I guess the second is actually new text, which reads better.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> 3) <!-- [rfced]  In the following, to what does "it" and "both" refer?
> >> Is it "Map-Versioning" or "the information"?  Because there are two
> >> uses and the text refers to "both cases", we suggest using updating
> >> this text to clearly separate the uses (e.g., perhaps use <ol> or <ul>).
> >>
> >> Original:
> >>   When Map-Versioning is used, LISP-encapsulated data packets contain
> >>   the version number of the two mappings used to select the RLOCs in
> >>   the outer header (i.e., both source and destination RLOCs).  This
> >>   information has two uses.  On the one hand, it enables the ETR
> >>   (Egress Tunnel Router) receiving the packet to know if the ITR
> >>   (Ingress Tunnel Router) is using the latest mapping version for the
> >>   destination EID.  If this is not the case, the ETR can directly send
> >>   a Map-Request containing the updated mapping to the ITR, to notify it
> >>   of the latest version.  The ETR can also solicit the ITR to trigger a
> >>   Map-Request to obtain the latest mapping by sending it a Solicit Map-
> >>   Request (SMR) message.  Both cases are defined in
> >>   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].  On the other hand, it enables an ETR
> >>   receiving such a packet to know if it has in its EID-to-RLOC Map-
> >>   Cache the latest mapping for the source EID.  If this is not the
> >>   case, a Map-Request can be sent.
> >> -->
> >
> > New suggested text:
> >
> >    When Map-Versioning is used, LISP-encapsulated data packets contain
> >    the version number of the two mappings used to select the RLOCs in
> >    the outer header (i.e., both source and destination RLOCs).  This
> >    information has two uses:
> >
> >    1. Map-Versioning enables the ETR  (Egress Tunnel Router) receiving
> >        the packet to know if the ITR (Ingress Tunnel Router) is using the latest
> >        mapping version for the destination EID.  If this is not the case, the ETR
> >        can directly send a Map-Request containing the updated mapping to
> >        the ITR, to notify it of the latest version.  The ETR can also solicit the
> >        ITR to trigger a Map-Request to obtain the latest mapping by sending
> >        a Solicit Map- Request (SMR) message.  Both options are defined in
> >        [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].
> >
> >   2. Map-Versioning enables an ETR  receiving the packet to know if it
> >       has in its EID-to-RLOC Map-Cache the latest mapping for the
> >       source EID.  If this is not the case, a Map-Request can be sent.
> >
> > Better?
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> 4) <!--[rfced] May we update instances of "Dest Map-Version number"
> >> to "Destination Map-Version number" to reflect usage in RFC 6834?
> >> Note that this document has 2 instances of "Destination Map-Version
> >> number" and 14 instances of "Dest Map-Version number".
> >>
> >> Original:
> >>   Dest Map-Version number:  Map-Version of the mapping in the EID-to-
> >>     RLOC Map-Cache used by the ITR to select the RLOC present in the
> >>     "Destination Routing Locator" field of the outer IP header of LISP-
> >>     encapsulated packets (Section 7.1).
> >> -->
> >>
> >
> > Actually should be the other way around, changing the two instances of
> "Destination Map-Version Number: to "Dest Map-Version Number". The use
> of "Dest Map-Version Number" has been chosen to be inline with the figure
> 1 throughout the document.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> 5) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, may we update this text as follows?
> >>
> >> Original:
> >>   The ordering enables reacting differently to
> >>   "older" and "newer" Map-Version number, discarding the packet in the
> >>   former case and triggering a Map-Request in the latter (see Section 7
> >>   for further details).
> >>
> >> Perhaps:
> >>   The ordering enables different reactions to
> >>   "older" and "newer" Map-Version numbers, whereby "older" numbers
> are
> >>   discarded and "newer" numbers trigger Map-Requests (see Section 7
> >>   for further details).
> >> -->
> >
> > Yes. It reads better.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> 6) <!-- [rfced] Do you want to use superscript (<sup>) here?
> >>
> >> Original:
> >>        V2 > V1 AND (V2 - V1) <= 2**(12-1)
> >>
> >>         OR
> >>
> >>         V1 > V2 AND (V1 - V2) > 2**(12-1)
> >>
> >> <sup> would display as follows in the text:
> >>         V2 > V1 AND (V2 - V1) <= 2^(12-1)
> >>
> >>         OR
> >>
> >>         V1 > V2 AND (V1 - V2) > 2^(12-1)
> >>
> >> (12-1) would display as superscript in HTML and PDF.
> >> -->
> >
> > Yes, good idea.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> 7) <!-- [rfced] Is it the LISP site that assigns a new Map-Version number?
> >>
> >> Original:
> >>   The main idea of using Map-Version numbers is that whenever there is
> >>   a change in the mapping (e.g., adding/removing RLOCs, a change in the
> >>   weights due to Traffic Engineering policies, or a change in the
> >>   priorities) or a LISP site realizes that one or more of its own RLOCs
> >>   are not reachable anymore from a local perspective (e.g., through
> >>   IGP, or policy changes) the LISP site updates the mapping, also
> >>   assigning a new Map-Version number.
> >>
> >> Perhaps:
> >>   The main idea of using Map-Version numbers is that whenever there is
> >>   a change in the mapping (e.g., adding/removing RLOCs, a change in the
> >>   weights due to Traffic Engineering policies, or a change in the
> >>   priorities) or a LISP site realizes that one or more of its own RLOCs
> >>   are no longer reachable from a local perspective (e.g., through IGP
> >>   or policy changes), the LISP site updates the mapping and also assigns
> >>   a new Map-Version number.
> >> -->
> >
> > The suggested text is OK.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> 8) <!-- [rfced] Is mapping intended to be singular or plural here?
> >>
> >> Original:
> >>   To this end simple measures can be
> >>   taken, like updating a mapping only when all active traffic is using
> >>   the latest version, or waiting sufficient time to be sure that
> >>   mapping in LISP caches expire, which means waiting at least as much
> >>   as the mapping Time-To-Live (as defined in
> >>   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]).
> >>
> >> Perhaps:
> >>   To this end, simple measures can be taken, like
> >>   updating a mapping only when all active traffic is using the latest
> >>   version, or waiting a sufficient amount of time to be sure that the
> >>   mapping in LISP caches expires, which means waiting at least as long
> >>   as the mapping Time To Live (TTL) (as defined in [RFC9301]).
> >> -->
> >
> > Singular is correct.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> 9) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble parsing this sentence.  Should
> >> the second instance of "ignoring the Source Map-Version number" be
> deleted?
> >>
> >> Original:
> >>   The ETR checks only the Dest Map-Version number, ignoring the Source
> >>   Map-Version number as specified in the final sentence of Section 7.2,
> >>   ignoring the Source Map-Version number.
> >> -->
> >
> > Yes, delete the second instance.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> 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.
> >> -->
> >
> > Nothing to change IMO.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Ciao
> >
> > L.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Thank you.
> >>
> >> RFC Editor
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sep 12, 2022, at 9:33 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> >>
> >> *****IMPORTANT*****
> >>
> >> Updated 2022/09/12
> >>
> >> 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/rfc9302.xml
> >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.html
> >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.pdf
> >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.txt
> >>
> >> Diff file of the text:
> >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302-diff.html
> >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302-rfcdiff.html (side by
> >> side)
> >>
> >> Diff of the XML:
> >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302-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/rfc9302.original.v2v3.xml
> >>
> >> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
> >> only:
> >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9302.form.xml
> >>
> >>
> >> Tracking progress
> >> -----------------
> >>
> >> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
> >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9302
> >>
> >> Please let us know if you have any questions.
> >>
> >> Thank you for your cooperation,
> >>
> >> RFC Editor
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------
> >> RFC9302 (draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-14)
> >>
> >> Title            : Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Map-Versioning
> >> Author(s)        : L. Iannone, D. Saucez, O. Bonaventure
> >> WG Chair(s)      : Joel M. Halpern, Luigi Iannone
> >> Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston