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:
a) Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC
Style Guide"). Please review.
Original:
LISP Distinguished Name Encoding
Current:
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Distinguished Name Encoding
b) Please note that we have added an abbreviated title that appears in
the running header of the pdf version. Please review and let us know
if any updates are necessary.
Original:
[nothing]
Current:
LISP Name Encoding
-->
2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
3) <!--[rfced] Neither RFC 9300 nor RFC 9301 have "architecture" in their
title. Are these document "nicknames" or concepts? Please
review this citation and sentence and let us know if any updates
are needed.
Original:
The LISP architecture and protocols ([RFC9300], [RFC9301]) introduces
two new numbering spaces,...
-->
4) <!--[rfced] Is RFC 5280 to be read as one of a group of RFCs? Or is
this the only RFC the reader is being pointed to?
Original:
The Distinguished Name field in this document has no relationship to
the similarly named field in the Public-Key Infrastructure using
X.509 (PKIX) specifications [RFC5280].
Perhaps:
The Distinguished Name field in this document has no relationship to
the similarly named field in the Public-Key Infrastructure using
X.509 (PKIX) specifications (e.g., [RFC5280]).
-->
5) <!--[rfced] Please review uses of NULL in this document.
Particularly:
a) Should these be updated to NUL? Please let us know any changes in
Old/New format or feel free to update the edited XML as desired.
b) We see the following similar uses. Should these be made uniform?
NULL Terminated vs.
NULL (0x00) terminated vs.
terminating NULL 0x00 octet vs.
NULL 0 octet vs.
NULL terminated vs.
NULL octet vs.
null octet
c) Further, we would expect NULL Terminated to be hyphenated in
attributive position (before a noun). Please see how (0x00) can fit
into that scheme.
-->
6) <!--[rfced] We had a few questions about the following text:
Original:
When Distinguished Names are encoded for EIDs, the EID Mask-Len length
of the EIDs as they appear in EID-Records for all LISP control
messages [RFC9301] is the length of the string in bits (including the
terminating NULL 0x00 octet).
a) Might it be helpful to move this citation to RFC 9301 to a
previous/first use of LISP control messages (perhaps in the
Introduction)? Or is this citation covering another/more parts of the
sentence here?
b) Is it redundant to say "the EID Mask-Len length of the EIDs"?
-->
7) <!--[rfced] We are having trouble parsing this sentence. What MUST the
lookups carry?
Original:
Distinguished Name EID lookups MUST carry as an EID Mask-Len length
equal to the length of the name string.
-->
8) <!--[rfced] In the following, please clarify the parenthetical. What
is 5 octets? The null octet itself or the null octet plus
"ietf"?
Original:
For example, if the registered EID name is "ietf" with EID Mask-Len
of 40 bits (the length of string "ietf" plus the null octet is 5
octets), and a Map-Request is received for EID name "ietf.lisp" with
an EID Mask-Len of 80 bits, the Map-Server will return EID "ietf"
with length of 40 bits.
-->
9) <!--[rfced] To what does "LISP Distinguished Name specification"
refer? Is a citation necessary here?
Original:
Practical implementations of the LISP Distinguished Name
specification have been running in production networks for some time.
-->
10) <!--[rfced] We had a few questions regarding this text:
Original:
In a practical implementation of
[I-D.ietf-lisp-site-external-connectivity] on LISP deployments,
routers running as Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers (Proxy-ETRs) register
their role with the Mapping System in order to attract traffic
destined for external networks.
a) Is there an update we can make to describe which part/concept of
the cited document is being practically implemented (e.g., the
registration procedures, requirements, etc.).
b) We note some inconsistencies in the abbreviation for "Proxy Egress
Tunnel Routers":
[I-D.ietf-lisp-site-external-connectivity] seems to use pETR
This document uses Proxy-ETR
Past RFCs have used PETR.
Please review and let us know what, if any, updates are necessary.
-->
11) <!--[rfced] What citation should be added to this sentence to point
the reader to the LISP Site External Connectivity document? Is
this draft-ietf-lisp-site-external-connectivity?
Original:
The Distinguished Name in this case serves as a common reference EID
that can be requested (or subscribed as per [RFC9437]) to dynamically
gather this Proxy-ETR list as specified in the LISP Site External
Connectivity document.
-->
12) <!--[rfced] We had a few questions about these similar sentences
appearing in Sections 9.3-9.5:
a) Perhaps we can update to avoid saying a website has had
experience in these sentences?
b) Should the same citation appear in each of the sentences?
Original:
The open source lispers.net NAT-Traversal implementation
[I-D.farinacci-lisp-lispers-net-nat] has had 10 years of deployment
experience using Distinguished Names for documenting xTRs versus Re-
encapsulating Tunnel Router (RTRs) as they appear in a locator-set.
Perhaps:
At the time of writing, the open-source lispers.net NAT-Traversal
implementation [I-D.farinacci-lisp-lispers-net-nat] has deployed
Distinguished Names for documenting xTRs versus Re-encapsulating
Tunnel Routers (RTRs) as they appear in a locator-set for 10 years.
Original:
The open source lispers.net implementation has had 10 years of self-
documenting RLOC names in production and pilot environments.
Perhaps:
At the time of writing, the open-source lispers.net implementation
[I-D.farinacci-lisp-lispers-net-nat] has self-documented RLOC names in
production and pilot environments.
Original:
The open source lispers.net implementation has had 10 years of
deployment experience allowing xTRs to register EIDs as Distinguished
Names.
Perhaps:
At the time of writing, the open-source lispers.net implementation
[I-D.farinacci-lisp-lispers-net-nat] has deployed xTRs that are
allowed to register EIDs as Distinguished Names for 10 years.
-->
13) <!-- [rfced] We had the following questions related to terminology use
throughout the document:
a) Please review the way that the AFI value is referred to throughout
the text (e.g., using an equals sign, spacing around the equals sign,
etc.). We see:
Address Family Identifier (AFI) 17 "Distinguished Names"
AFI 17 "Distinguished Name"
the AFI value 17
An AFI=17 Distinguished Name
an AFI=17 encoded string
AFI 17
See also: AFI = 1
How may we make these consistent throughout?
b) We see variation in the way the term Distinguished Names is
referred to (i.e., capitalization, pluralization, quotation, etc.).
In addition to the examples in a) above, please also see:
LISP Distinguished Names
AFI 17 "Distinguished Name" and (AFI) 17 "Distinguished Names" (sg/pl)
Distinguished Name (DN)
Please consider if this is the name of the value or the concept in
general during your review and send us updates in either Old/New form
or update the edited XML file directly.
c) We see that the abbreviation DN was used nearly at the end of the
document. Might we reduce some of the inconsistencies by moving the
abbreviation to first use (or the first use that is not to the direct
name of the IANA-registered value) and then using DN thereafter?
d) We see variations in the following forms. Should these be made
consistent?
Mapping System vs. mapping system
EID-Record vs. EID record
RLOC-record vs. RLOC record
-->
14) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for the following
abbreviations per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style
Guide"). Please review each expansion in the document carefully
to ensure correctness.
LISP - Locator/ID Separation Protocol
LCAF - LISP Canonical Address Format
-->
15) <!-- [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.
For example, please consider whether the following should be updated:
whitespace
In addition, please consider whether "tradition" should be updated for
clarity. While the NIST website
<https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructions#table1>
indicates that this term is potentially biased, it is also ambiguous.
"Tradition" is a subjective term, as it is not the same for everyone.
Original:
...to start with traditional UDP registrations.
-->
Thank you.
RFC Editor/mf
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2025/01/31
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/rfc9735.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9735.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9735.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9735.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9735-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9735-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9735-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9735
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC9735 (draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-17)
Title : LISP Distinguished Name Encoding
Author(s) : D. Farinacci, L. Iannone
WG Chair(s) : Joel M. Halpern, Luigi Iannone
Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, John Scudder, Gunter Van de Velde
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
