Link State Routing                                                M. Fox
Internet-Draft                                                       IBM
Updates: 2328 5340 4222 4811 5243 5614 5838 (if                A. Lindem
         approved)                                         Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track                               A. Retana
Expires: 10 January 2023                    Futurewei Technologies, Inc.
                                                             9 July 2022


                       Update to OSPF Terminology
                   draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-terminology-03

Abstract

   This document updates some OSPF terminology to be in line with
   inclusive language used in the industry.  The IETF has designated
   National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) "Guidance for
   NIST Staff on Using Inclusive Language in Documentary Standards" for
   its inclusive language guidelines.

   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 10 January 2023.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   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.



Fox, et al.              Expires 10 January 2023                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft              OSPF Terminology                   July 2022


   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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   7.  Update to RFC5614 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   8.  Update to RFC5838 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   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
   National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) "Guidance for
   NIST Staff on Using Inclusive Language in Documentary Standards"
   [NISTIR8366] for its inclusive language guidelines.

   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 froming a "master/slave relationship".
   All instances of these terms are replaced by leader/follower,
   respectively.

   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



Fox, et al.              Expires 10 January 2023                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft              OSPF Terminology                   July 2022


   Neighbor Data Structures", 10.1 "Neighbor states", 10.2 "Events
   causing neighbor state changes", 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 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 the Database
   Description packet bit are renamed to "L".  There is also a reference
   to "Master" in this section that is renamed to "Leader".

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 rename to
   "Follower".





Fox, et al.              Expires 10 January 2023                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft              OSPF Terminology                   July 2022


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".  Addiitionally, 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:

      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, e.g., IPv4 is
      possible because a router that doesn't support this specification
      can still be included in the  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.

         Figure 1: RFC 5838, Section 2.4 - Updated First Paragraph

9.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Dhruv Dhody and Adrian Farrel for review and comments.







Fox, et al.              Expires 10 January 2023                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft              OSPF Terminology                   July 2022


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>.

   [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>.




Fox, et al.              Expires 10 January 2023                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft              OSPF Terminology                   July 2022


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
   Cisco Systems
   301 Midenhall Way
   Cary, NC 27513
   United States of America
   Email: acee@cisco.com


   Alvaro Retana
   Futurewei Technologies, Inc.
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara, CA 95050
   United States of America
   Email: aretana@futurewei.com


















Fox, et al.              Expires 10 January 2023                [Page 6]