Authors,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the
following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!-- [rfced] Please review the following questions and changes regarding this
document's title:
a) FYI - Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC
Style Guide").
b) Should "RSVP" be added to the title for consistency with the rest of the
document and the abbreviated title?
Original:
Refresh-interval Independent FRR Facility Protection
Current:
Refresh-Interval Independent Fast Reroute (FRR) Facility Protection
Perhaps:
Refresh-Interval Independent RSVP Fast Reroute (RI-RSVP-FRR) Facility
Protection
-->
2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
3) <!-- [rfced] Should the first bullet be separated into two separate bullets
because it contains two separate problems?
Original:
The use of Refresh messages to
cover many possible failures has resulted in a number of operational
problems.
- One problem relates to RSVP control plane scaling due to periodic
refreshes of Path and Resv messages, another relates to the
reliability and latency of RSVP signaling.
- An additional problem is the time to clean up the stale state
after a tear message is lost. For more on these problems see
Section 1 of RSVP Refresh Overhead Reduction Extensions [RFC2961].
Perhaps:
The use of Refresh messages to
cover many possible failures has resulted in a number of operational
problems.
* One problem relates to RSVP control plane scaling due to periodic
refreshes of Path and Resv messages
* Another problem relates to the relates to the reliability and latency of
RSVP signaling. reliability and latency of RSVP signaling.
* An additional problem is the time to clean up the stale state
after a tear message is lost. For more on these problems see
Section 1 of [RFC2961].
-->
4) <!--[rfced] To clarify this document's relation to [RFC2961], may we
update this sentence as follows?
Original:
Therefore, this document makes support for [RFC2961] a pre-requisite.
Perhaps:
Therefore, [RFC2961] is a prerequisite for this document.
-->
5) <!-- [rfced] Please review the following questions and changes regarding
Section 2 ("Terminology").
a) The terminology list contains a mixture of both abbreviations and
definitions. For consistency and readability, may we separate definitions and
abbreviations into two different lists?
b) May we update some list items for a more accurate and 1:1 relationship
between an abbreviation and its expansion? Please see examples in the
"Perhaps" text below.
c) In addition, the format of some definition items may suggest that "router"
and "node" can be used interchangeably (see some examples below). Please
review and confirm if this is accurate. May we update the terms as suggested
below?
Originals:
Phop node: Previous-hop router along the label switched path
MP: Merge Point router as defined in [RFC4090]
LP-MP node: Merge Point router at the tail of Link-Protecting bypass tunnel
Perhaps (a few examples):
PHOP: Previous-Hop (can refer to a router or node along the LSP)
MP: Merge Point (can refer to a router as defined in [RFC4090])
LP-MP: Link-Protecting Merge Point (can refer to a router or node at the
tail of a Link-Protecting bypass tunnel)
d) FYI - We have added expansions for Path State Block (PSB) and Reservation
State Block (RSB) to this terminology list to avoid expanding them inside of
the definition of "LSP state". Please review and let us know if there are
additional abbreviations or terminology used in this document (such as LSP,
FRR, etc.) that you would like to add to this terminology list.
-->
6) <!-- [rfced] How may we update "has been configured to be long of the order
of
minutes" for clarity?
Original:
Assume that refresh interval has been configured to be long of the order of
minutes and refresh reduction extensions are enabled on all routers.
Perhaps:
Assume that refresh interval has been configured to be as long as the order
of minutes and that refresh reduction extensions are enabled on all routers.
-->
7) <!-- [rfced] How may we update this section title to avoid using an RFC
number
as an adjective?
Original:
4.1. Requirement on RFC 4090 Capable Node to advertise RI-RSVP Capability
Perhaps (remove RFC number):
4.1. Requirement for Capable Nodes to Advertise the RI-RSVP Capability
Perhaps (keep RFC number):
4.1. Requirement for Capable Nodes from RFC 4090 to Advertise the
RI-RSVP Capability
-->
8) <!-- [rfced] Can the second sentence in the text below be made more concise,
as it mostly contains repeated information from the previous sentence?
Original:
- The PLR MUST also include its router ID in a Node-ID sub-object in
RRO object carried in any subsequent Path message corresponding to
the LSP. While including its router ID in the Node-ID sub-object
carried in the outgoing Path message, the PLR MUST include the
Node-ID sub-object after including its IPv4/IPv6 address or
unnumbered interface ID sub-object.
Perhaps:
* The PLR MUST also include its router ID in a Node-ID sub-object in
the RRO object that is carried in any subsequent Path message
corresponding to the LSP. While doing so, the PLR
MUST include the Node-ID sub-object after including its IPv4/IPv6
address or unnumbered interface ID sub-object.
-->
9) <!-- [rfced] May we update the text below to improve readability? In
particular,
how may we clarify what the MP "sets" the I-bit to?
Original:
If the MP has set the I-bit in the CAPABILITY object [RFC8370] carried
in Hello message corresponding to the Node-ID based Hello session, then
the PLR MUST conclude that the MP supports refresh- interval independent
FRR procedures defined in this document.
Perhaps:
The PLR MUST conclude that the MP
supports the refresh-interval independent FRR procedures defined in
this document if the MP has set the I-bit in the CAPABILITY object
[RFC8370] (carried in the Hello message) to correspond with the Node-
ID-based Hello session.
-->
10) <!-- [rfced] FYI - There are a number of instances throughout the document
where
we have updated text to be formatted as a bulleted list to improve readability.
Please review these instances and let us know of any objections.
-->
11) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have updated the text as follows to improve
readability.
Please let us know of any objections or if any further updates are needed.
Original:
Now when A-B link fails, as B is not an
MP and its Phop link has failed, B will delete the LSP state (this
behavior is required for unprotected LSPs - refer to Section 4.3.1 of
this document).
Current:
Now, when the A-B link fails, B will delete the LSP state, because B is not
an MP and its Phop link has failed (this behavior is required for
unprotected LSPs; refer to Section 4.3.1 of this document).
-->
12) <!-- [rfced] As all other fields are defined following Figure 2, should
the Length field also have an entry?
Current:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Class | C-type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags (Reserved) |M|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: CONDITIONS Object
Class: 135
C-type: 1
Flags: 32 bit field
M: Bit 31 is the Merge-point condition (M) bit. If the M bit is set
to 1, then the PathTear message MUST be processed according to the
receiver router role, i.e., if the receiving router is an MP or
not for the LSP. If it is not set, then the PathTear message MUST
be processed as a normal PathTear message for the LSP.
-->
13) <!-- [rfced] May we provide additional context or lead-in text for the
list below?
Original:
Consider that B-C link goes down on the same example topology
(Figure 1). As C is the NP-MP for the PLR A, C will retain LSP
state.
1. The LSP is preempted on C.
2. C will delete the RSB state...
Perhaps:
Consider that the B-C link goes down on the same example topology
(Figure 1). As C is the NP-MP for the PLR A, C will retain LSP
state. This means:
1. The LSP is preempted on C.
2. C will delete the RSB state...
-->
14) <!-- [rfced] To reflect usage in RFC 8370, may we update 'the flag
"Refresh interval Independent RSVP" or RI-RSVP flag' below as follows?
Original:
An implementation supporting RI-RSVP-FRR extensions MUST set the flag
"Refresh interval Independent RSVP" or RI-RSVP flag in the CAPABILITY
object carried in Hello messages as specified in RSVP-TE Scaling
Techniques [RFC8370].
Perhaps:
An implementation supporting RI-RSVP-FRR extensions MUST set the RI-RSVP
Capable flag in the CAPABILITY object carried in Hello messages as
specified in RSVP-TE Scaling Techniques [RFC8370].
-->
15) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have updated the following text to match similar
introductory text from the previous section.
Original:
The procedures are as follows.
Current:
The procedures on the upstream direction are as follows:
-->
16) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, may we update the text below as follows?
Original:
So, the implementations
SHOULD provide the option to configure Node-ID neighbor specific or
global authentication key to authentication messages received from
Node-ID neighbors.
Perhaps:
Therefore, the implementations SHOULD provide the option to configure either
a
specific neighbor or global Node-ID authentication key to authentication
messages received from Node-ID neighbors.
-->
17) <!-- [rfced] Please review the following questions and changes regarding the
terminology used in this document.
a) We note some instances where "RSVP" is not included in "Refresh-Interval
Independent FRR" (in the document title and elsewhere). For consistency,
should "RSVP" be added to these instances? Some examples are listed below.
Original:
4.6.1. Detecting Support for Refresh interval Independent FRR
...
"Refresh interval Independent FRR" or RI-RSVP-FRR refers to the set
of procedures defined in this document to...
Perhaps:
4.6.1. Detecting Support for Refresh-Interval Independent RSVP FRR
...
"Refresh-Interval Independent RSVP FRR", or RI-RSVP-FRR, refers to the set
of procedures defined in this document to...
b) To parallel usage in RFC 4090, may we update the capitalization of the terms
below
throughout this document?
Phop > PHOP
PPhop > PPHOP
Nhop > NHOP
NNhop > NNHOP
c) To parallel usage in RFC 8796, may we update the capitalization of the terms
below
throughout this document?
Association source > Association Source
B-SFRR-Ready Extended Association object > B-SFRR-Ready Extended ASSOCIATION
object
d) Should instances of "RRO object" and "LSP path" be updated to simply read
"RRO" and "LSP" to avoid redundancy? If expanded, "RRO object" would read as
"Record Route Object object" and "LSP path" would read as "Label Switched
Path path". Please review and let us know if any updates are needed.
-->
18) <!-- [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. Updates of this nature typically
result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers.
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/kf/ap
On Dec 19, 2024, at 4:28 PM, [email protected] wrote:
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2024/12/19
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
* [email protected] (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).
* [email protected], 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,
[email protected] 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/rfc9705.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9705.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9705.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9705.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9705-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9705-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9705-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9705
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC9705 (draft-ietf-mpls-ri-rsvp-frr-22)
Title : Refresh-interval Independent FRR Facility Protection
Author(s) : C. Ramachandran, T. Saad, I. Minei, D. Pacella
WG Chair(s) : Nicolai Leymann, Tarek Saad, Tony Li
Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, John Scudder, Gunter Van de Velde
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
