Hi Tony, Thank you for your review - we have noted your approval on the AUTH48 page <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9885>.
Thank you, Sandy Ginoza RFC Production Center > On Sep 29, 2025, at 10:53 PM, Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I concur with Les’ comments. > > Ship it! > > T > > >> On Sep 29, 2025, at 10:27 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) - ginsberg at >> cisco.com <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Folks - >> >> Thanx for diligence. >> >> I have reviewed the modified text and am fine with all of the changes - >> except where noted below. >> >> Responses to each of the questions inline. >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 9:34 PM >>> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >>> [email protected]; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> >>> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >>> [email protected]; [email protected]; >>> [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9885 <draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv-19> for your >>> review >>> >>> Authors, >>> >>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) >>> the following questions, which are also in the source 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] Capitalization for some of the TLV descriptions do not >>> match the IANA registry. Should these match? It wasn't clear to us if you >>> intentionally chose initial capitalization for all descriptions, regardless >>> of what appears in the RFCs/registries. >>> >>> Examples: >>> IANA vs document >>> >>> IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV vs Router Capability TLV >>> (though "IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV" appears once in Section 7) >>> >>> Extended IS reachability vs Extended IS Reachability >>> (outside of the IANA table) >>> --> >>> >> [LES:] The intent is to match what is used in the IANA registries exactly - >> so your changes are fine. >> >>> >>> 3) <!-- [rfced] Presumably, the mechanism defined in this document would >>> not be needed if the mechanims defined by RFC 7356 were backwards >>> compatible (i.e., the existence of RFC 7356 does not resolve the problem). >>> For clarity, we suggest the update below. Please review and clarify as >>> needed. >>> >>> Original: >>> [RFC7356] has defined a 16-bit length field for TLVs in flooding >>> scoped Protocol Data Units (PDUs), in which case the problem >>> addressed by this document would not exist. However, introduction of >>> these new PDU types is not backwards compatible. Therefore, there is >>> a need to address how to expand the information advertised in >>> existing PDUs that use 8-bit length TLVs. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> [RFC7356] has defined a 16-bit length field for TLVs in flooding >>> scoped Protocol Data Units (PDUs), but it is not backwards >>> compatible. Therefore, there remains a need to address how to >>> expand the information advertised in PDUs that use 8-bit TLVs. >>> --> >> [LES:] I prefer the existing text in the document. In theory, MP-TLV is >> applicable to TLVs with 16 bit length, though the likelihood this would ever >> be needed is close to zero. >> Still, I see no need to preclude it. >> >>> >>> >>> 4) <!-- [rfced] The text indicates that this mechanism is to be used in >>> cases where no extension was previously specified and is to be used with >>> future TLVs. Assuming "future TLVs" refers to only the TLVs with 8-bit >>> TLVs, we suggest the following update. Please review. >>> >>> Original: >>> This document specifies a means for extending TLVs where no extension >>> mechanism has been previously explicitly specified, and defines this >>> mechanism as the default extension mechanism for future TLVs. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> This document specifies a means for extending TLVs where no extension >>> mechanism has been previously explicitly specified, and defines this >>> mechanism as the default extension mechanism for future TLVs with an >>> 8-bit length field. >>> --> >> [LES:] Again, I prefer the existing text for the same reasons as in the >> previous response. >> Also note that the same TLV codes/formats are usable in the 16 bit length >> variants i.e., RFC 7356 does not define a disjoint set of TLVs. >> >>> >>> >>> 5) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, may we update the text as follows? >>> >>> Original: >>> Some TLVs support advertisement of objects of a given type, where >>> each object is identified by a unique set of identifiers. In this >>> case the "key" that uniquely identifies a given object consists of >>> the set of identifiers. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> Some TLVs support advertisement of objects of a given type, where >>> each object is identified by a unique set of identifiers, which is >>> referred to as a "key". >>> --> >> [LES:] I prefer the current text in the document. The introduction of the >> term "key" was the subject of lengthy discussion in the WG. Some folks found >> it difficult to understand it given that the term is not used in many >> existing RFCs. >> It is therefore important to recognize "key" as a functional description - >> not a literal name for given fields. I think the existing text does a better >> job of that. >> >>> >>> >>> 6) <!-- [rfced] We added articles in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2. Please >>> review and let us know if any corrections are needed. >>> --> >> >> [LES:] Looks good to me. >> >>> >>> >>> 7) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble parsing "transient" as a noun. >>> Perhaps this should read "a transient issue" or "a transient error"? >>> >>> Original: >>> Note that this can occur either legitimately as a >>> transient when a TLV moves from one LSP to another or as a result of >>> a defect in the sending implementation. >>> --> >> [LES:] How about "transient condition" ? >> >>> >>> >>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in this document >>> 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). >>> --> >> [LES:] At a quick glance, I am not inclined to use this mechanism. >> >>> >>> >>> 9) <!-- [rfced] We wonder if the following update would help with >>> readability. >>> >>> Original: >>> The >>> receiving router must then process this as having key information K >>> and unique sub-TLVs A, B, C, D, E, F, or, because ordering is >>> irrelevant, unique sub-TLVs D, E, F, A, B, C, or any other >>> permutation. >>> >>> Perhaps - splitting this into two sentences: >>> The >>> receiving router must then process this as having key information K >>> and unique sub-TLVs A, B, C, D, E, F. Because ordering is >>> irrelevant, the sub-TLVs may appear in any order (e.g., D, E, F, A, B, C). >>> --> >> >> [LES:] I prefer the current wording in the document. We are discussing how >> the sub-TLVs are processed - not necessarily in what order they are >> sent/received. >> >>> >>> >>> 10) <!-- [rfced] We have updated the format of artwork in Section 7. >>> Please let us know if you have any concerns. >>> >>> Original: >>> MP-TLV Support for TLVs with implicit support >>> >>> Type 30 (suggested - to be assigned by IANA) 1 octet >>> Length 0 1 octet >>> >>> Current: >>> MP-TLV Support for TLVs with implicit support >>> >>> Type: 30 (1 octet) >>> Length: 0 (1 octet) >>> --> >> [LES:] Looks fine. >> >>> >>> >>> 11) <!-- [rfced] Please consider whether "per level" will be clear for the >>> reader. >>> >>> Original: >>> Scope of the associated Router Capability TLV is per level (S-bit >>> clear). >>> --> >> [LES:] This is meaningful to anyone familiar with the referenced RFC7981 >> (see reference earlier in the section). >> If you want to add another reference to this RFC on this line as well that >> is fine with me. >> >>> >>> >>> 12) <!-- [rfced] Please consider whether "implicit support" should be >>> capitalized - that is, how should it appear in other documents that refer >>> to this TLV? Note that we will ask IANA to update their registry as >>> needed. >>> >>> MP-TLV Support for TLVs with implicit support >>> --> >> [LES:] I am fine either way - but capitalizing it seems like a good choice. >> >>> >>> >>> 13) <!-- [rfced] Note that we have removed the URLs from each of the >>> subsections in Section 9.2. The URLs would need to be reduced to the URL >>> for the main registry group per IANA guidance, which is already mentioned >>> in Section 9.2. We did not include any introductory text for the tables >>> because the registry names are part of the section titles and table titles. >>> Please review and let us know if you prefer that introductory text be >>> added. >>> --> >> [LES:] The URLs for the individual tables are taken from the list of URLs at >> the beginning of >> https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml >> They are useful in that they can be used to go directly to the relevant >> "sub-registry". >> I prefer to keep them. >> If there is some IANA policy which makes this "illegal" - well OK. But if >> not, please restore them. >> >>> >>> >>> 14) <!-- [rfced] We removed "TLV" from these entries to match what appears >>> in the IANA registry. >>> >>> 126 IPv4 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV N >>> 127 IPv6 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV N >>> --> >> [LES:] That's fine. Note that I copied the text from the list at >> https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml#isis-tlv-codepoints-advertising-prefix-reachability >> - so IANA might consider updating that text as well. >> >> <snip> >> IPv4 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV (126) >> IPv6 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV (127) >> <end snip> >> >>> >>> >>> 15) <!-- [rfced] Table 4: Note that we updated the Unassigned values to be >>> 33-255, as value 32 is assigned to "BIER Info". >>> >>> Original: >>> | 32 | BIER Info | Y | >>> | 32-255 | Unassigned | | >>> --> >> [LES:] Thanx for catching this error. >> >>> >>> >>> 16) <!-- [rfced] We believe it is intentional that value 30, assigned to >>> "MP-TLV Support for TLVs with implicit support" in this document, is not >>> listed in Table 6. Please let us know if this is incorrect. >>> >>> Original: >>> | 30-160 | Unassigned | | >>> >>> --> >> [LES:] Yes. I was asked not to include in the tables any codepoints which >> had yet to get permanent assignments. >> >>> >>> >>> 17) <!-- [rfced] Note that we have updated the Description for Type 9 in >>> Table 13 to match what appears in the IANA registry. >>> >>> Original: >>> | 9 | IS-IS Threshold Metric | N | >>> >>> Current: >>> | 9 | IS-IS Bandwidth Metric | N | >>> --> >> [LES:] Thanx. >> >>> >>> >>> 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. >>> --> >> [LES:] No concerns on my part. >> >> Les >> >> >>> >>> >>> Thank you. >>> Sandy Ginoza >>> RFC Production Center >>> >>> >>> On Sep 29, 2025, at 9:30 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> *****IMPORTANT***** >>> >>> Updated 2025/09/29 >>> >>> 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/rfc9885.xml >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9885.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9885.pdf >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9885.txt >>> >>> Diff file of the text: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9885-diff.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9885-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >>> >>> Diff of the XML: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9885-xmldiff1.html >>> >>> >>> Tracking progress >>> ----------------- >>> >>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9885 >>> >>> Please let us know if you have any questions. >>> >>> Thank you for your cooperation, >>> >>> RFC Editor >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> RFC 9885 (draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv-19) >>> >>> Title : Multi-Part TLVs in IS-IS >>> Author(s) : P. Kaneriya, T. Li, A. Przygienda, S. Hegde, L. Ginsberg >>> WG Chair(s) : Acee Lindem, Christian Hopps, Yingzhen Qu >>> >>> Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter Van de Velde >>> >> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
