Hello RFCEditor Team, Please find below answers with GVP1>. I request @Stig Venaas (svenaas)<mailto:sven...@cisco.com> to share his comments as well Thanks Prasad
________________________________ From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2025 4:12 AM To: Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi) <vengg...@cisco.com>; Stig Venaas (svenaas) <sven...@cisco.com> Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; pim-...@ietf.org <pim-...@ietf.org>; pim-cha...@ietf.org <pim-cha...@ietf.org>; mmcbri...@gmail.com <mmcbri...@gmail.com>; gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com <gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com>; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9798 <draft-ietf-pim-jp-extensions-lisp-09> 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] Because this document updates RFC 8059, please review the errata reported for RFC 8059 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=8059). We do not believe any are applicable to this document, but we would appreciate confirmation that this is correct. --> GVP1>This is correct, the errarta does not apply in my understanding although the current document (draft-ietf-pim-jp-extensions-lisp-09) expands the scope of the field. 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> GVP1> We can use the same keywords as RFC8059 and RFC6831 3) <!-- [rfced] [RFC6831] appears to use the terms "(S-EID,G)" and "(S-RLOC,G)" rather than "(root-EID, G)" and "(root-RLOC, G)". This is clarified later in the paragraph, but perhaps the sentences should be closer together and the original term defined in RFC 6831 should be noted first. Original: [RFC6831] specifies that (root-EID, G) data packets are to be LISP- encapsulated into (root-RLOC, G) multicast packets. ... We use the term root-EID or root-RLOC to refer to the source of the multicast tree rooted at the EID or RLOC. Perhaps: [RFC6831] specifies that (EID, G) data packets are to be LISP- encapsulated into (RLOC, G) multicast packets. In this document, we use the term root-EID or root-RLOC to refer to the source of the multicast tree rooted at the EID or RLOC. ... --> GVP1> The suggestion looks good. 4) <!-- [rfced] Seemingly, the text points readers to RFCs 6831 and 9300 for definitions of EID and RLOC. Please review. Original (both from the Introduction): Please refer to Section 3 of [RFC6831] for the definition of the terms EID and RLOC. ... This document uses terminology defined in [RFC9300], such as EID, RLOC, ITR, and ETR. --> GVP1> OK 5) <!-- [rfced] Is (PxTR) the same as the site border node? Original: Inter-site Proxy Tunnel Routers (PxTR): When multiple LISP sites are interconnected through a LISP-based transit, the site border node (PxTR) connects the site-facing interfaces with the external LISP core. Perhaps: Inter-site Proxy Tunnel Routers (PxTR): When multiple LISP sites are interconnected through a LISP-based transit, the site border node (i.e., PxTR) connects the site-facing interfaces with the external LISP core. --> GVP1> OK 6) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, we suggest including a section number (at minimum) and/or the text being replaced. For example: Original: The definition of the "Receiver RLOC" field of the Receiver ETR RLOC attribute RFC 8059 [RFC8059] is updated as follows: Receiver RLOC: The RLOC address on which the receiver ETR wishes to receive the encapsulated flow. A unicast IP Receiver RLOC address is used for unicast-encapsulated flows. Alternately, a multicast IP Receiver RLOC address is used for for multicast-encapsulated flows. A multicast IP address MUST be used only when the underlay network of the LISP core supports IP Multicast transport. Suggested: The definition of the "Receiver RLOC" field of the Receiver ETR RLOC attribute (see Section 5.1 of [RFC8059]) is updated as follows: OLD: Receiver RLOC: The RLOC address on which the receiver ETR wishes to receive receiver the unicast-encapsulated flow. GVP1> Please note that the errarta of (1) applies here - The second occurrence is receive NOT receiver NEW: Receiver RLOC: The RLOC address on which the receiver ETR wishes to receive the encapsulated flow. A unicast IP Receiver RLOC address is used for unicast-encapsulated flows. Alternately, a multicast IP Receiver RLOC address is used for multicast-encapsulated flows. A multicast IP address MUST be used only when the underlay network of the LISP core supports IP Multicast transport. --> GVP1> OK 7) <!-- [rfced] [RFC6831] uses the term "outgoing interface list" and "OIF-list"; we do not see use of the term "OutgoingInterfaceList". Please review. Original: * It allocates a new entry in the OutgoingInterfaceList RFC 6831 [RFC6831] for every unique underlay multicast mapping. --> GVP1> OK. 8) <!-- [rfced] Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how they may be made consistent. Multicast vs multicast Note that we expanded the following abbreviations. Please let us know if any updates are required. Routing Locator (RLOC) Tunnel Router (xTR) --> GVP1> Pleas follow same conventions as RFC8059/ RFC9300 9) <!-- [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. --> GVP1> I hope this is just FYI Thank you. RFC Editor On May 27, 2025, at 3:37 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/05/27 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/rfc9798.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9798.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9798.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9798.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9798-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9798-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9798-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9798 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC 9798 (draft-ietf-pim-jp-extensions-lisp-09) Title : PIM Join/Prune Attributes for LISP Environments using Underlay Multicast Author(s) : V. Govindan, S. Venaas WG Chair(s) : Stig Venaas, Mike McBride 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
