Hi, I concur with Les’ comments.
Ship it! T > On Sep 29, 2025, at 10:27 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) - ginsberg at cisco.com > <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]
