Hello Sandy, Stig, Two replies inline with GVP1> Thanks Prasad
________________________________ From: Stig Venaas (svenaas) <sven...@cisco.com> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 10:16 PM To: Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi) <vengg...@cisco.com>; 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 Hi Sandy and Prasad Thanks for a lot of good improvements Sandy. A few more changes are needed. First sentence of 3.1: "No changes are proposed to the syntax" It is fine to say "proposed" in an internet draft, but now that this is an RFC I think it should just say "There are no changes to the syntax". Other suggestions? GVP1> Agree, this makes sense. Can you please use "s...@cisco.com" as my email address? This is what I'm using in other RFCs. Prasad, shouldn't your affiliation and contact details be updated as well? At least it should say "Cisco Systems, Inc." for both of us. GVP1> Agree, Please use the same affiliation for both Thanks, Stig > -----Original Message----- > From: Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 5:08 PM > To: Stig Venaas (svenaas) <sven...@cisco.com> > Cc: Stig Venaas (svenaas) <sven...@cisco.com>; RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc- > editor.org>; Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi) <vengg...@cisco.com>; > 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 > > Hi Stig, > > I apologize for my delayed reply. The document has been updated as noted > below. Regarding item 3, we have updated the in-text citation to refer to RFC > 6831, instead of RFC 9300. > > > > The terms EID and RLOC are (and should be) are the same in 6831 and 9300, > but 6831 has more details explaining what the terms mean in multicast > context. I think it is helpful to the reader of this document to use the > definitions in 6831 as this also applies to how this document uses them in the > same context. > > > >> ... > >> > >> This document uses terminology defined in [RFC9300], such as EID, > >> RLOC, ITR, and ETR. > > > Current: > This document uses terminology defined in [RFC6831], such as EID, > RLOC, ITR and ETR. > > > The most current files are available here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9798.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9798.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9798.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9798.html > > Diffs highlighting the most recent updates only: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9798-lastdiff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9798-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) > > AUTH48 diffs: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9798-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9798-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by > side) > > Comprehensive diffs: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9798-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9798-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > > Please review and let us know if any additional updates are needed or if you > approve the RFC for publication. > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/sg > > > > > > > > On Jun 4, 2025, at 1:43 PM, Stig Venaas (svenaas) <sven...@cisco.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi Sandy > > > > Please see inline > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > >> Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 1:56 PM > >> To: Stig Venaas (svenaas) <svenaas=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> > >> Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; Vengada Prasad Govindan > >> (venggovi) <vengg...@cisco.com>; 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 > >> > >> Hi Stig and Prasad, > >> > >> Thank you for your replies. We have updated the document as > >> discussed thus far, but we have a few followup questions noted below. > >> > >> The current files are available here; > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9798.xml > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9798.txt > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9798.pdf > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9798.html > >> > >> AUTH48 diffs: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9798-auth48diff.html > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9798-auth48rfcdiff.html (side > >> by sid)e > >> > >> Comprehensive diffs: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9798-diff.html > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9798-rfcdiff.html (side by > >> side) > >> > >> > >> In addition to reviewing the updated files, please address the following. > >> > >> > >> 1) Regarding keywords, RFCs 8059 and 6831 do not specify keywords, so > >> we have not added any. > >> > > > > That is fine. > > > >> 2) We have updated the following sentence in the Abstract for > >> clarity. Please let us know if any updates are needed. > >> > >> Original: > >> This document specifies an update to the PIM Receiver RLOC Join/Prune > >> attribute that supports the construction of multicast distribution > >> trees … > >> > >> Current: > >> This document specifies an update to the Receiver RLOC field (Routing > >> Locator) of the PIM Join/Prune attribute that supports the > >> construction of multicast distribution trees … > > > > This is good, thanks. > > > >> 3) We recommend pointing to either RFC 6831 or 9300 to define EID and > >> RLOC, or clarifying what each of the documents is providing (for > >> example, does one provide additional information?). Please review > >> and let us know if we may update the text to more definitively > >> indicate where EID and RLOC are defined. > >> > >> Original (both from the Introduction): > >> Please refer to Section 3 of [RFC6831] for the > >> definition of the terms EID and RLOC. > > > > The terms EID and RLOC are (and should be) are the same in 6831 and 9300, > but 6831 has more details explaining what the terms mean in multicast > context. I think it is helpful to the reader of this document to use the > definitions in 6831 as this also applies to how this document uses them in the > same context. > > > >> ... > >> > >> This document uses terminology defined in [RFC9300], such as EID, > >> RLOC, ITR, and ETR. > >> > >> > >> 4) This comment appears in the XML — note that we intend to remove > >> this comment. > >> > >> <!-- > >> %<t>The root ITR MUST also discard all affected Join/Prune > >> sources if the Transport Attribute value is set to any value other > >> than zero and the Address field of the Receiver RLOC contains a > >> multicast IP address. </t> --> > > > > Yes, please do. > > > > Thanks, > > Stig > > > >> > >> Thank you, > >> RFC Editor/sg > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> On May 29, 2025, at 9:00 AM, Stig Venaas (svenaas) > >> <svenaas=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> 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
