Sandy - Thanx for the response and the updates completed thus far. Please see inline.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Sandy Ginoza <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, October 2, 2025 3:24 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> > Cc: RFC Editor <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > lsr- > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9885 <draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv-19> for your > review > > Hi Les, > > Thank you for your replies. We have left most of the text as it was in > original, > but we have a few followup questions. Please review details below. Note that > resolved items have been trimmed. > > > > On Sep 29, 2025, at 10:27 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> 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. > > We have made updates to the examples noted above throughout the > document. > > We have not made updates to the following in the body of the document: MT > Intermediate Systems TLV (222) > This is registered with IANA as “MT-ISN”. Please let us know if any updates > are > desired. > [LES:] Yes - please use "MT-ISN". As we have agreed, the intent is to use the existing IANA TLV names throughout. > > > >> > >> 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. > > We have not made any updates, but we find the first sentence especially > confusing. The “in which” statement does not quite fit with the earlier part > of > the sentence. Perhaps the “in which” part of the sentence can be removed? > > In addition, does "8-bit TLVs" mean "8-bit Length fields"? > [LES:] I think this discussion has highlighted that the current text is not completely in sync with the intent of the document. Here is a proposed rewording. Also note that the document currently does NOT use the term "8-bit TLVs" (your proposed changes introduced that). The document uses "8-bit length TLVs" - but I have clarified that in the new proposal below. " [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 likely not be encountered. 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 TLVs with 8-bit length fields." > > >> 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. > > Perhaps: > This document specifies a means for extending TLVs where no extension > mechanism has been previously explicitly specified. It also specifies this > mechanism as the default extension mechanism for future TLVs. > [LES:] OK > > > > >> 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. > > Would updating this as “per IS-IS level [RFC7981]” work? [LES:] No. RFC 7981 specifies the meaning of the S-bit: <snip> S bit (0x01): If the S bit is set(1), the IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV MUST be flooded across the entire routing domain. If the S bit is not set(0), the TLV MUST NOT be leaked between levels. This bit MUST NOT be altered during the TLV leaking. <end snip> I believe the current wording is clear to anyone familiar with RFC7981. If they aren't familiar with RFC7981 then they aren't going to understand the sentence no matter how we word it. I am OK with: "Scope of the associated Router CAPABILITY TLV is per level (S-bit clear) [RFC7981]." > > > > >> 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. > > We capitalized “Implicit Support” and will ask IANA to update their registry. > > > > >> 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. > > We removed the URLs per the IANA guidance on > <https://www.iana.org/help/protocol-registration>: > > • If the registry should be placed at an existing URL, it's helpful to cite > that URL, > but please use the "short" version that doesn't include a file extension (or a > URI fragment). More on this below, in the "Future" section. In the meantime: > • Yes: https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters > • No: https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters/bgp- > parameters.xhtml > • No, regrettably: https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp- > parameters/bgp-parameters.xhtml#bgp-graceful-restart-flags > [LES:] So, we have a real problem here. Feel free to involve IANA in the discussion. With the URLs, it is straightforward to find the specific "sub-registry" which s being modified. Without the URLs, what is a reader to do? Take the example of 9.2.2. MP-TLV for IS-IS Sub-TLVs for Reverse Metric TLV How is the reader to find the specific sub-registry which is being modified? Try inserting "IS-IS Sub-TLVs for Reverse Metric TLV" into your favorite search engine and see what you get - not very satisfactory. The reader would somehow have to know: 1)Navigate to https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml 2)Search for " IS-IS Sub-TLVs for Reverse Metric TLV" on the page 3)Click on the link available there Not very reader friendly. I appreciate that you are trying to follow the "letter of the law" as per the guidance referenced above - but the end result is not useful. I have used the URLs which IANA itself assigned to the sub-registries. If the format of the URLs is not "quotable" it seems to me, it is IANA's problem to make them quotable. There is a real need to have usable references to the individual registries which are being changed. Les > > > >> 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. > > We will mention this to IANA. > > > <snip> > > IPv4 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV (126) > > IPv6 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV (127) > > <end snip> > > > The current files are available here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9885.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9885.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9885.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9885.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9885-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9885-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9885-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9885-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by > side) > > Please let us know how you’d like to proceed. > > 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]
