Dear RFC Editor I'm fine with the comments from my co-author.
One comment inline for point 7 below. I reviewed the changes, and they look good, but I see we don't have full contact details for the authors. The correct details for me are: Stig Venaas Cisco Systems, Inc. Tasman Drive San Jose CA 95134 United States of America Email: s...@cisco.com Thanks, Stig > -----Original Message----- > From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> > Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2025 3:42 PM > To: Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi) <vengg...@cisco.com>; Stig Venaas > (svenaas) <sven...@cisco.com> > Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org; pim-...@ietf.org; pim-cha...@ietf.org; > mmcbri...@gmail.com; gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com; > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9798 <draft-ietf-pim-jp-extensions-lisp-09> > for your review > Importance: High > > 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. > --> > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the > title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> > > > 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. ... > --> > > > 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. > --> > > > 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. > --> > > > 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 > receiver the unicast-encapsulated flow. > > 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. > --> > > > 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. > --> It would be good to replace this with "outgoing interface list" as in 6831. > > 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) > --> > > > 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. > --> > > > 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
