Folks - Thanx for diligence.
I have reviewed the modified text and am fine with all of the changes - except where noted below. Responses to each of the questions inline. > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 9:34 PM > To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9885 <draft-ietf-lsr-multi-tlv-19> for your > review > > Authors, > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) > the following questions, which are also in the source file. > > 1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in > the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> > > > 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. > > 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. > > > 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. > > > 5) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, may we update the text as follows? > > Original: > Some TLVs support advertisement of objects of a given type, where > each object is identified by a unique set of identifiers. In this > case the "key" that uniquely identifies a given object consists of > the set of identifiers. > > Perhaps: > Some TLVs support advertisement of objects of a given type, where > each object is identified by a unique set of identifiers, which is > referred to as a "key". > --> [LES:] I prefer the current text in the document. The introduction of the term "key" was the subject of lengthy discussion in the WG. Some folks found it difficult to understand it given that the term is not used in many existing RFCs. It is therefore important to recognize "key" as a functional description - not a literal name for given fields. I think the existing text does a better job of that. > > > 6) <!-- [rfced] We added articles in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2. Please > review and let us know if any corrections are needed. > --> [LES:] Looks good to me. > > > 7) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble parsing "transient" as a noun. > Perhaps this should read "a transient issue" or "a transient error"? > > Original: > Note that this can occur either legitimately as a > transient when a TLV moves from one LSP to another or as a result of > a defect in the sending implementation. > --> [LES:] How about "transient condition" ? > > > 8) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in this document > should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container for > content that is semantically less important or tangential to the > content that surrounds it" (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml- > vocabulary#aside). > --> [LES:] At a quick glance, I am not inclined to use this mechanism. > > > 9) <!-- [rfced] We wonder if the following update would help with > readability. > > Original: > The > receiving router must then process this as having key information K > and unique sub-TLVs A, B, C, D, E, F, or, because ordering is > irrelevant, unique sub-TLVs D, E, F, A, B, C, or any other > permutation. > > Perhaps - splitting this into two sentences: > The > receiving router must then process this as having key information K > and unique sub-TLVs A, B, C, D, E, F. Because ordering is > irrelevant, the sub-TLVs may appear in any order (e.g., D, E, F, A, B, C). > --> [LES:] I prefer the current wording in the document. We are discussing how the sub-TLVs are processed - not necessarily in what order they are sent/received. > > > 10) <!-- [rfced] We have updated the format of artwork in Section 7. > Please let us know if you have any concerns. > > Original: > MP-TLV Support for TLVs with implicit support > > Type 30 (suggested - to be assigned by IANA) 1 octet > Length 0 1 octet > > Current: > MP-TLV Support for TLVs with implicit support > > Type: 30 (1 octet) > Length: 0 (1 octet) > --> [LES:] Looks fine. > > > 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. > > > 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. > > > 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. > > > 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. <snip> IPv4 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV (126) IPv6 Algorithm Prefix Reachability TLV (127) <end snip> > > > 15) <!-- [rfced] Table 4: Note that we updated the Unassigned values to be > 33-255, as value 32 is assigned to "BIER Info". > > Original: > | 32 | BIER Info | Y | > | 32-255 | Unassigned | | > --> [LES:] Thanx for catching this error. > > > 16) <!-- [rfced] We believe it is intentional that value 30, assigned to > "MP-TLV Support for TLVs with implicit support" in this document, is not > listed in Table 6. Please let us know if this is incorrect. > > Original: > | 30-160 | Unassigned | | > > --> [LES:] Yes. I was asked not to include in the tables any codepoints which had yet to get permanent assignments. > > > 17) <!-- [rfced] Note that we have updated the Description for Type 9 in > Table 13 to match what appears in the IANA registry. > > Original: > | 9 | IS-IS Threshold Metric | N | > > Current: > | 9 | IS-IS Bandwidth Metric | N | > --> [LES:] Thanx. > > > 18) <!-- [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. > --> [LES:] No concerns on my part. Les > > > 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]
