Hi Luigi and Dino, Thanks for your replies. We have made updates accordingly. Please see the links to the updated files below.
Additionally, we could use further guidance and/or a response regarding the following from our initial set of queries (listed below with our comments in [rfced]) so we can close out the list: > 10) <!--[rfced] We had a few questions regarding this text: > > Original: > In a practical implementation of > [I-D.ietf-lisp-site-external-connectivity] on LISP deployments, routers > running as Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers (Proxy-ETRs) register their role with > the Mapping System in order to attract traffic destined for external > networks. > > a) Is there an update we can make to describe which part/concept of the > cited document is being practically implemented (e.g., the registration > procedures, requirements, etc.). [rfced] We don’t believe we saw a response to (a). Please let us know if you’d like to update or leave the text as is. > a) Please review the way that the AFI value is referred to throughout the > text (e.g., using an equals sign, spacing around the equals sign, etc.). We > see: > > Address Family Identifier (AFI) 17 "Distinguished Names" > AFI 17 "Distinguished Name" > the AFI value 17 > An AFI=17 Distinguished Name > an AFI=17 encoded string > AFI 17 > [LI] We can make everything uniform to: AFI 17 Distinguished Name [rfced] We actually did this slightly differently based on your response regarding the abbreviation DN. When AFI 17 was mentioned and it seemed like we were talking about the IANA-registered name, we used the quotes and spelled out Distinguished Name. Other instances (without AFI 17) that seemed like the general concept were made DN after we introduced the abbreviation. Please review and let us know any objections. > 15) <!-- [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. > > For example, please consider whether the following should be updated: > > whitespace [rfced] We didn’t see a response regarding the use of “whitespace”. Please let us know any updates you’d like to make. > d) We see variations in the following forms. Should these be made > consistent? > > Mapping System vs. mapping system > EID-Record vs. EID record > RLOC-record vs. RLOC record > [LI] Yes thanks. They should be: Mapping System EID-Record RLOC-Record [rfced] Please review our update to move a sentence from the Introduction to the Abstract in order to keep the expansions of EID and RLOC while maintaining consistent RLOC-Record and EID-Record use. Please review the files carefully for the incorporation of the other updates you sent along as we do not make changes after publication. The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9735.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9735.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9735.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9735.xml The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9735-diff.html (comprehensive diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9735-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes only) Please contact us with any further updates/questions/comments you may have. We will await replies to the above followups and approvals from each of the parties listed on the AUTH48 status page prior to moving forward to publication. The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9735 Thank you. RFC Editor/mf > On Feb 3, 2025, at 2:19 AM, Luigi IANNONE > <luigi.iannone=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > Hi > > Thanks for reviewing the document. > > I have a few comments inline marked with "[LI]". > > > L. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> >> Sent: Saturday, 1 February 2025 01:34 >> To: farina...@gmail.com; Luigi IANNONE <luigi.iann...@huawei.com> >> Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org; lisp-...@ietf.org; lisp-cha...@ietf.org; >> na...@cisco.com; james.n.guich...@futurewei.com; auth48archive@rfc- >> editor.org >> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9735 <draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-17> 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] Please note that the title of the document has been >> updated as follows: >> >> a) Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style >> Guide"). Please review. >> >> Original: >> LISP Distinguished Name Encoding >> >> Current: >> Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Distinguished Name Encoding >> >> b) Please note that we have added an abbreviated title that appears in the >> running header of the pdf version. Please review and let us know if any >> updates are necessary. >> >> Original: >> [nothing] >> >> Current: >> LISP Name Encoding >> --> > [LI] OK. Thanks. > > >> >> >> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the >> title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> >> >> >> 3) <!--[rfced] Neither RFC 9300 nor RFC 9301 have "architecture" in their >> title. Are these document "nicknames" or concepts? Please >> review this citation and sentence and let us know if any updates >> are needed. >> >> Original: >> The LISP architecture and protocols ([RFC9300], [RFC9301]) introduces two >> new numbering spaces,... >> --> >> > [LI] May be just simplify to "LISP ([RFC9300], [RFC9301]) introduces....." > >> >> 4) <!--[rfced] Is RFC 5280 to be read as one of a group of RFCs? Or is >> this the only RFC the reader is being pointed to? >> >> Original: >> The Distinguished Name field in this document has no relationship to the >> similarly named field in the Public-Key Infrastructure using >> X.509 (PKIX) specifications [RFC5280]. >> >> Perhaps: >> The Distinguished Name field in this document has no relationship to the >> similarly named field in the Public-Key Infrastructure using >> X.509 (PKIX) specifications (e.g., [RFC5280]). > > [LI] This change is OK. > [LI] > > >> --> >> >> >> 5) <!--[rfced] Please review uses of NULL in this document. >> Particularly: >> >> a) Should these be updated to NUL? Please let us know any changes in >> Old/New format or feel free to update the edited XML as desired. >> > [LI] Keep "NULL" > > >> b) We see the following similar uses. Should these be made uniform? >> >> NULL Terminated vs. >> NULL (0x00) terminated vs. >> terminating NULL 0x00 octet vs. >> NULL 0 octet vs. >> NULL terminated vs. >> NULL octet vs. >> null octet > [LI] Uniform to: > NULL-terminated (0x00) > NULL octet (0x00) > >> >> c) Further, we would expect NULL Terminated to be hyphenated in >> attributive position (before a noun). Please see how (0x00) can fit into >> that >> scheme. >> --> > [LI] See above > >> >> >> 6) <!--[rfced] We had a few questions about the following text: >> >> Original: >> When Distinguished Names are encoded for EIDs, the EID Mask-Len length of >> the EIDs as they appear in EID-Records for all LISP control messages >> [RFC9301] is the length of the string in bits (including the terminating NULL >> 0x00 octet). >> >> a) Might it be helpful to move this citation to RFC 9301 to a previous/first >> use >> of LISP control messages (perhaps in the Introduction)? Or is this citation >> covering another/more parts of the sentence here? > [LI] I would keep it here as it applies for any use of Distinguished Names as > EIDs. >> >> b) Is it redundant to say "the EID Mask-Len length of the EIDs"? >> >> --> > [LI] Yes, may be simplify to " the EID Mask-Len length of the EID-Records, > for all LISP control messages,...." > >> >> >> 7) <!--[rfced] We are having trouble parsing this sentence. What MUST the >> lookups carry? >> >> Original: >> Distinguished Name EID lookups MUST carry as an EID Mask-Len length >> equal to the length of the name string. >> --> > [LI] Rephrase the first sentence as: > > When performing Distinguished Name EID lookups, Map-Request messages > MUST carry an EID Mask-Len length equal to the length of the name string > in bits. > >> >> >> 8) <!--[rfced] In the following, please clarify the parenthetical. What >> is 5 octets? The null octet itself or the null octet plus >> "ietf"? >> >> Original: >> For example, if the registered EID name is "ietf" with EID Mask-Len of 40 >> bits >> (the length of string "ietf" plus the null octet is 5 octets), and a >> Map-Request >> is received for EID name "ietf.lisp" with an EID Mask-Len of 80 bits, the >> Map- >> Server will return EID "ietf" >> with length of 40 bits. >> >> --> > [LI] 5 octets is "ietf"+0x00, may be writing "> (the length of string "ietf" > plus the length of the NULL octet makes 5 octets), " > > >> >> >> 9) <!--[rfced] To what does "LISP Distinguished Name specification" >> refer? Is a citation necessary here? >> >> Original: >> Practical implementations of the LISP Distinguished Name specification have >> been running in production networks for some time. >> >> --> > [LI] Is the specifications in this document, may be change as "... > implementations of the LISP Distinguished Name, defined in this document, > have...." > > >> >> >> 10) <!--[rfced] We had a few questions regarding this text: >> >> Original: >> In a practical implementation of >> [I-D.ietf-lisp-site-external-connectivity] on LISP deployments, routers >> running as Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers (Proxy-ETRs) register their role with >> the Mapping System in order to attract traffic destined for external >> networks. >> >> a) Is there an update we can make to describe which part/concept of the >> cited document is being practically implemented (e.g., the registration >> procedures, requirements, etc.). >> >> b) We note some inconsistencies in the abbreviation for "Proxy Egress >> Tunnel Routers": >> >> [I-D.ietf-lisp-site-external-connectivity] seems to use pETR >> >> This document uses Proxy-ETR >> >> Past RFCs have used PETR. >> >> Please review and let us know what, if any, updates are necessary. > [LI] RFC 9300 is the reference, and it uses "Proxy-ETR", we should use this > everywhere. > >> --> >> >> >> 11) <!--[rfced] What citation should be added to this sentence to point >> the reader to the LISP Site External Connectivity document? Is >> this draft-ietf-lisp-site-external-connectivity? > [LI] Yes. >> >> Original: >> The Distinguished Name in this case serves as a common reference EID that >> can be requested (or subscribed as per [RFC9437]) to dynamically gather this >> Proxy-ETR list as specified in the LISP Site External Connectivity document. >> --> >> >> >> 12) <!--[rfced] We had a few questions about these similar sentences >> appearing in Sections 9.3-9.5: >> >> a) Perhaps we can update to avoid saying a website has had experience in >> these sentences? >> >> b) Should the same citation appear in each of the sentences? >> >> Original: >> The open source lispers.net NAT-Traversal implementation [I-D.farinacci-lisp- >> lispers-net-nat] has had 10 years of deployment experience using >> Distinguished Names for documenting xTRs versus Re- encapsulating Tunnel >> Router (RTRs) as they appear in a locator-set. >> >> Perhaps: >> At the time of writing, the open-source lispers.net NAT-Traversal >> implementation [I-D.farinacci-lisp-lispers-net-nat] has deployed >> Distinguished Names for documenting xTRs versus Re-encapsulating Tunnel >> Routers (RTRs) as they appear in a locator-set for 10 years. >> >> >> Original: >> The open source lispers.net implementation has had 10 years of self- >> documenting RLOC names in production and pilot environments. >> >> Perhaps: >> At the time of writing, the open-source lispers.net implementation [I- >> D.farinacci-lisp-lispers-net-nat] has self-documented RLOC names in >> production and pilot environments. >> >> >> Original: >> The open source lispers.net implementation has had 10 years of deployment >> experience allowing xTRs to register EIDs as Distinguished Names. >> >> Perhaps: >> At the time of writing, the open-source lispers.net implementation [I- >> D.farinacci-lisp-lispers-net-nat] has deployed xTRs that are allowed to >> register EIDs as Distinguished Names for 10 years. >> >> --> > [LI] OK for me. > >> >> >> 13) <!-- [rfced] We had the following questions related to terminology use >> throughout the document: >> >> a) Please review the way that the AFI value is referred to throughout the >> text (e.g., using an equals sign, spacing around the equals sign, etc.). We >> see: >> >> Address Family Identifier (AFI) 17 "Distinguished Names" >> AFI 17 "Distinguished Name" >> the AFI value 17 >> An AFI=17 Distinguished Name >> an AFI=17 encoded string >> AFI 17 >> > [LI] We can make everything uniform to: AFI 17 Distinguished Name > > >> See also: AFI = 1 > [LI] replace with "AFI equal 1" >> >> How may we make these consistent throughout? >> >> b) We see variation in the way the term Distinguished Names is referred to >> (i.e., capitalization, pluralization, quotation, etc.). >> In addition to the examples in a) above, please also see: >> >> LISP Distinguished Names >> AFI 17 "Distinguished Name" and (AFI) 17 "Distinguished Names" (sg/pl) >> Distinguished Name (DN) > > [LI] Plural should be avoided. But I do not see other issues.... > >> >> Please consider if this is the name of the value or the concept in general >> during your review and send us updates in either Old/New form or update >> the edited XML file directly. >> >> c) We see that the abbreviation DN was used nearly at the end of the >> document. Might we reduce some of the inconsistencies by moving the >> abbreviation to first use (or the first use that is not to the direct name >> of the >> IANA-registered value) and then using DN thereafter? > [LI] Sure. > >> >> d) We see variations in the following forms. Should these be made >> consistent? >> >> Mapping System vs. mapping system >> EID-Record vs. EID record >> RLOC-record vs. RLOC record >> > [LI] Yes thanks. They should be: > > Mapping System > EID-Record > RLOC-Record > > >> --> >> >> >> 14) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for the following >> abbreviations per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style >> Guide"). Please review each expansion in the document carefully >> to ensure correctness. >> >> LISP - Locator/ID Separation Protocol >> LCAF - LISP Canonical Address Format >> >> --> > [LI] Thanks. >> >> >> 15) <!-- [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. >> >> For example, please consider whether the following should be updated: >> >> whitespace >> >> In addition, please consider whether "tradition" should be updated for >> clarity. While the NIST website <https://www.nist.gov/nist-research- >> library/nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructions#table1> >> indicates that this term is potentially biased, it is also ambiguous. >> "Tradition" is a subjective term, as it is not the same for everyone. >> >> Original: >> ...to start with traditional UDP registrations. >> --> > [LI] The term "traditional" can be dropped. > >> >> >> Thank you. > [LI] Thanks for the thorough review. > > > >> >> RFC Editor/mf >> >> *****IMPORTANT***** >> >> Updated 2025/01/31 >> >> 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/rfc9735.xml >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9735.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9735.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9735.txt >> >> Diff file of the text: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9735-diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9735-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> >> Diff of the XML: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9735-xmldiff1.html >> >> >> Tracking progress >> ----------------- >> >> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9735 >> >> Please let us know if you have any questions. >> >> Thank you for your cooperation, >> >> RFC Editor >> >> -------------------------------------- >> RFC9735 (draft-ietf-lisp-name-encoding-17) >> >> Title : LISP Distinguished Name Encoding >> Author(s) : D. Farinacci, L. Iannone >> WG Chair(s) : Joel M. Halpern, Luigi Iannone >> Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, John Scudder, Gunter Van de Velde >> >> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
