Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-terminology
draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-terminology
Link State Routing M. Fox
Internet-Draft IBM
Updates: 2328 5340 4222 4811 5243 5614 5838 (if A. Lindem
approved) LabN Consulting LLC
Intended status: Standards Track A. Retana
Expires: 26 November 2023 Futurewei Technologies, Inc.
25 May 2023
Update to OSPF Terminology
draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-terminology-09
Abstract
This document updates some OSPF terminology to be in line with
inclusive language used in the industry. The IETF has designated US
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) "Guidance for
NIST Staff on Using Inclusive Language in Documentary Standards" for
its inclusive language guidelines. It is intended that all future
OSPF documents use this revised terminology even when they reference
the RFCs updated by this document.
This document updates RFC2328, RFC5340, RFC4222, RFC4811, RFC5243,
RFC5614, and RFC5838.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 26 November 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Fox, et al. Expires 26 November 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft OSPF Terminology May 2023
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Update to RFC2328 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Update to RFC5340 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Update to RFC4222 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Update to RFC4811 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. Update to RFC5243 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. Update to RFC5614 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8. Update to RFC5838 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
This document updates some OSPF terminology to be in line with
inclusive language used in the industry. The IETF has designated US
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) "Guidance for
NIST Staff on Using Inclusive Language in Documentary Standards"
[NISTIR8366] for its inclusive language guidelines. It is intended
that all future OSPF documents use this revised terminology even when
they reference the RFCs updated by this document.
This document updates [RFC2328], [RFC5340], [RFC4222], [RFC4811],
[RFC5243], [RFC5614], and [RFC5838].
2. Update to RFC2328
The base OSPFv2 specification [RFC2328] defines the synchronization
of databases as two routers forming a "master/slave relationship".
All instances of these terms are replaced by Leader/Follower,
respectively.
Fox, et al. Expires 26 November 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft OSPF Terminology May 2023
The Master (MS) bit in the database description packet is renamed the
Leader (L) bit.
The operation of OSPFv2 is not modified. The Leader/Follower
terminology and Leader (L) Bit definition changes impact the
following sections: 7.2 "The Synchronization of Databases", 10 "The
Neighbor Data Structures", 10.1 "Neighbor states", 10.2 "Events
causing neighbor state changes", 10.3 "The Neighbor state machine",
10.6 "Receiving Database Description Packets", 10.8 "Sending Database
Description Packets", 10.10 "An Example", and A.3.3 "The Database
Description packet".
3. Update to RFC5340
The base OSPFv3 specification [RFC5340] defines the database
description process between two routers as one being "designated to
be the master and the other is the slave". All instances of these
terms are replaced by Leader/Follower, respectively.
The Master/Slave (MS) bit in the database description packet is
renamed the Leader (L) bit.
The operation of OSPFv3 is not modified. The Leader/Follower
terminology and Leader (L) Bit definition changes impact section
A.3.3 "The Database Description packet".
4. Update to RFC4222
This Best Current Practice (BCP) document describes "Prioritized
Treatment of Specific OSPF Version 2 Packets and Congestion
Avoidance" [RFC4222]. There is an example OSFPv2 packet sequence in
Appendix C, (2), that refers to the "slave" in a database exchange.
This reference will be renamed to "Follower".
5. Update to RFC4811
This Experimental document specifies "OSPF Out-of-Band Link State
Database (LSDB) Resynchronization" [RFC4811]. Section 2.4 includes a
Database Description packet (Figure 2) and a description of the
attendant encoding changes for Out-of-Band Resynchronization. In the
figure and the description, all instances of MS when referring to the
Database Description packet bit are renamed to "L". There is also a
reference to "Master" in this section that is renamed to "Leader".
Fox, et al. Expires 26 November 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft OSPF Terminology May 2023
6. Update to RFC5243
This Informational document describes an "OSPF Database Exchange
Summary List Optimization" [RFC5243]. The Introduction, Section 1,
references "Master or Slave". This will be replaced by "Leader or
Follower". Section 3.0 includes an example of the optimized database
exchange. In this example, all instances of "Master" will be renamed
to "Leader" and all instances of "Slave" will be renamed to
"Follower".
7. Update to RFC5614
This Experimental document specifies the "Mobile Ad Hoc Network
(MANET) Extension of OSPF Using Connected Dominating Set (CDS)
Flooding" [RFC5614]. "Changes to the Neighbor State Machine",
Section 7.2 contains modifications to the neighbor state machine
updated from [RFC2328]. In this transition to "2-way" state, all
instances of "Master" are renamed to "Leader" and all instances of
"Slave" are renamed to "Follower". Additionally, instances of "MS"
in reference to the Database Description packet bit are renamed to
"L". Additionally, in "Receiving Database Description Packets,
Section 7.5, the parenthentical "master or slave" is replaced by
"Leader or Follower".
8. Update to RFC5838
This Standards Track document specifies the "Support of Address
Families in OSPFv3" [RFC5838]. "Database Description Maximum
Transmission Unit (MTU) Specification for Non-IPv6 AFs", Section 2.7
contains a Database Description packet change figure which include
the "MS" bit. In this figure, the "MS" field will be renamed to "L"
field.
Additionally, in Section 2.4.,first paragraph, "Changes to the Hello
Packet Processing", the text is updated to remove the non-inclusive
terms pertaining to unreachability handling as follows:
Fox, et al. Expires 26 November 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft OSPF Terminology May 2023
When an OSPFv3 router does not support this specification and an
interface is configured with the Instance ID corresponding to a
IPv4 AF, packets could be routed toward this interface and
dropped. This could happen due to misconfiguration or a router
software downgrade. Packet reception and dropping on an interface
not configured with the packet AF. For example, an IPv4 packet
could be received on an interface not supporting IPv4 since
a router that doesn't support this specification can still
include the interface in an SPF-calculated path as long as it
establishes adjacencies using the Instance ID corresponding
to the IPv4 AF. Note that OSPPFv3 Router-LSAs and Network-LSAs are
AF-agnostic.
9. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Dhruv Dhody, Adrian Farrel, Barry Leiba, and Erik Kline for
review and comments.
10. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to rename bit 0x01 in the "Database Description
(DD) Packet Flags" registry to "Leader (L-bit)" and to add a
reference to this document.
11. Security Considerations
This document updates the terminology used in OSPF RFCs without any
modification to the specifications of the protocol. As such, the
security characteristics of OSPF do not change.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
[RFC4222] Choudhury, G., Ed., "Prioritized Treatment of Specific
OSPF Version 2 Packets and Congestion Avoidance", BCP 112,
RFC 4222, DOI 10.17487/RFC4222, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4222>.
[RFC4811] Nguyen, L., Roy, A., and A. Zinin, "OSPF Out-of-Band Link
State Database (LSDB) Resynchronization", RFC 4811,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4811, March 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4811>.
Fox, et al. Expires 26 November 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft OSPF Terminology May 2023
[RFC5243] Ogier, R., "OSPF Database Exchange Summary List
Optimization", RFC 5243, DOI 10.17487/RFC5243, May 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5243>.
[RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.
[RFC5614] Ogier, R. and P. Spagnolo, "Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET)
Extension of OSPF Using Connected Dominating Set (CDS)
Flooding", RFC 5614, DOI 10.17487/RFC5614, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5614>.
[RFC5838] Lindem, A., Ed., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Barnes, M., and
R. Aggarwal, "Support of Address Families in OSPFv3",
RFC 5838, DOI 10.17487/RFC5838, April 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5838>.
12.2. Informative References
[NISTIR8366]
"Guidance for NIST Staff on Using Inclusive Language in
Documentary Standards, National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) Interagency or Internal Report 8366",
NISTIR 8366, April 2021,
<https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8366>.
Authors' Addresses
Mike Fox
IBM
3039 E Cornwallis Rd
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
United States of America
Email: mjfox@us.ibm.com
Acee Lindem
LabN Consulting LLC
301 Midenhall Way
Cary, NC 27513
United States of America
Email: acee.ietf@gmail.com
Fox, et al. Expires 26 November 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft OSPF Terminology May 2023
Alvaro Retana
Futurewei Technologies, Inc.
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95050
United States of America
Email: aretana@futurewei.com
Fox, et al. Expires 26 November 2023 [Page 7]
