Hi RFC Editor, Thanks for this mail. Please find my replies inline.
Original
From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>
To: 陈然00080434;赵德涛10132546;ppse...@cisco.com
<ppse...@cisco.com>;ketant.i...@gmail.com
<ketant.i...@gmail.com>;gongli...@chinamobile.com <gongli...@chinamobile.com>;
Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>;lsr-...@ietf.org
<lsr-...@ietf.org>;lsr-cha...@ietf.org
<lsr-cha...@ietf.org>;acee.i...@gmail.com
<acee.i...@gmail.com>;gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com
<gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com>;auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
<auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>;
Date: 2025年05月23日 07:00
Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9792
<draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-flags-07> 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. -->
I suggest：Prefix attributes；IGP
2) <!-- [rfced] We note one instance of "variable-flag fields"; should
this perhaps be updated as "variable-length Prefix Attribute
Flags field" for clarity and consistency as shown below?
Original:
Such sub-TLV specifies the variable-flag
fields to advertise additional attributes associated with OSPF
prefixes.
Perhaps:
The sub-TLV specifies the variable-length Prefix Attribute Flags
field to advertise additional attributes associated with OSPF
prefixes.
-->Yes, that change looks good.
3) <!-- [rfced] The following text points to non-existent
sections. [RFC3630] does not contain Section 6.3, and [RFC8362]
does not contain Section 2.3.2. Was "Section 2.3.2 of [RFC3630]
and Section 6.3 of [RFC8362]" perhaps intended as shown below?
Current:
An implementation that does not recognize the OSPFv2/OSPFv3 Prefix
Attribute Flags sub-TLV would ignore the sub-TLV as per normal TLV
processing operations (refer to Section 6.3 of [RFC3630] and Section
2.3.2 of [RFC8362]).
Perhaps:
An implementation that does not recognize the OSPFv2/OSPFv3 Prefix
Attribute Flags sub-TLV would ignore the sub-TLV as per normal TLV
processing operations (refer to Section 2.3.2 of [RFC3630] and Section
6.3 of [RFC8362]).
-->You are correct. The intended references were mistakenly reversed.
4) <!-- [rfced] We have included some specific questions about the IANA
text below. In addition to responding to those questions, please
review all of the IANA-related updates carefully and let us know
if any further updates are needed.
a) We see the following note from IANA. Please confirm if the additional
sentence has been added or if it still needs to be added.
NOTE: The authors plan to upload an -08 that will include
an additional sentence in the IANA Considerations section.
-->Yes, it still need to be added. Please add: The entry in the "L2BM" field is
"X" at the
bottom of section 5.2.1. Please see blow:
5.2.1. OSPFv3 Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV Registry
This document requests IANA to make permanent the early allocation of
the following codepoint for the "OSPFv3 Prefix Attribute Flags" in
the "OSPFv3 Extended-LSA sub-TLVs" registry:
Value Description Reference
-------- ---------------------------------- --------------
37 OSPFv3 Prefix Attribute Flags RFC to beThe entry in the "L2BM" field is "X".
b) Should the titles of the new registries created by this document
be updated to use "Flags" rather than "Flag Field"? We ask because that
seems to be the pattern with other registry titles within both of the
registry groups (see links below).
Also, the name of the field in Figure 1 of this document is "Prefix Attribute
Flags". Should the titles of the registries be updated further to use
"Prefix Attribute" rather than "Prefix Extended"? Or is this okay?
If the titles are updated, we will ask IANA to update the registries
accordingly.
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters/
Current:
OSPFv2 Prefix Extended Flag Field
OSPFv3 Prefix Extended Flag Field
Perhaps A:
OSPFv2 Prefix Extended Flags
OSPFv3 Prefix Extended Flags
or
Perhaps B:
OSPFv2 Prefix Attribute Flags
OSPFv3 Prefix Attribute Flags
--> We agree with the suggestion and prefer to rename the registries as follows
for
clarity and consistency with the field name used in the document:
OSPFv2 Prefix Attribute Flags
OSPFv3 Prefix Attribute Flags
Please proceed to ask IANA to update the registry titles accordingly. Many
thanks!
5) <!-- [rfced] Terminology
a) FYI - We see both of the following forms. We updated the document
to reflect the second form (i.e., with capitalized "Flags") for
consistency.
flags field of the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV
Flags field of the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV
--> Yes, that change looks good.
b) Please review the capitalization of "prefix attribute flags" and "Prefix
Attribute Flags" in the text below. We believe this should be capitalized in
the name of the TLV and the name of the field but lowercased in general
text. However, we are not sure if the capitalized form in the following
sentences is referring to the field. Are any updates needed?
Original:
Length (2 octets): Variable, dependent on the included Prefix
Attribute Flags. This indicates the length of the prefix attributes
flags in octets.
...
For example, the most
significant bit in the fifth octet of an 8-octet Prefix Attribute
Flags is referred to as bit 32.
Perhaps (leave capitalized form and add "field" for clarity):
Length (2 octets): Variable, dependent on the included Prefix
Attribute Flags field. This indicates the length of the prefix
attributes flags in octets.
...
For example, the most
significant bit in the fifth octet of an 8-octet Prefix Attribute
Flags field is referred to as bit 32.
--> Yes, I agree.
There is one more place that needs to be updated.
Original: Length (2 octets): Variable, dependent on the included Prefix
Attribute Flags. This indicates the length of the prefix attributes flags in
octets.
New:
Length (2 octets): Variable, dependent on the included Prefix Attribute
Flags field. This indicates the length of the Prefix Attributes Flags
field in octets.
6) <!-- [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.
-->
After checking I believe the current text is OK in this aspect.Many thanks,
Ran
Thank you.
RFC Editor/rv/kc
On May 22, 2025, at 3:57 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote:
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2025/05/22
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
* rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (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).
* auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, 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,
auth48archive@rfc-editor.org 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/rfc9792.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9792.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9792.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9792.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9792-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9792-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9792-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9792
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC9792 (draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-flags-07)
Title : Prefix Flag Extension for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3
Author(s) : R. Chen, D. Zhao, P. Psenak, K. Talaulikar, L. Gong
WG Chair(s) : Acee Lindem, Christian Hopps, Yingzhen Qu
Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter Van de Velde--
auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
