Update to OSPF Terminology
RFC 9454



Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                            M. Fox
Request for Comments: 9454                                           IBM
Updates: 2328, 4222, 4811, 5243, 5340, 5614,                   A. Lindem
         5838                                    LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Category: Standards Track                                      A. Retana
ISSN: 2070-1721                             Futurewei Technologies, Inc.
                                                             August 2023

                       Update to OSPF Terminology

Abstract

   This document updates some OSPF terminology to be in line with
   inclusive language used in the industry.  The IETF has designated
   "Guidance for NIST Staff on Using Inclusive Language in Documentary
   Standards" by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology
   (NIST) 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 RFCs 2328, 4222, 4811, 5243, 5340, 5614, and
   5838.

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9454.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2023 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.  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.  Update to RFC 2328
   3.  Update to RFC 4222
   4.  Update to RFC 4811
   5.  Update to RFC 5243
   6.  Update to RFC 5340
   7.  Update to RFC 5614
   8.  Update to RFC 5838
   9.  IANA Considerations
   10. Security Considerations
   11. References
     11.1.  Normative References
     11.2.  Informative References
   Acknowledgements
   Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

   This document updates some OSPF terminology to be in line with
   inclusive language used in the industry.  The IETF has designated
   "Guidance for NIST Staff on Using Inclusive Language in Documentary
   Standards" by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology
   (NIST) [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], [RFC4222], [RFC4811], [RFC5243],
   [RFC5340], [RFC5614], and [RFC5838].

2.  Update to RFC 2328

   The base OSPFv2 specification "OSPF Version 2" [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.

   In the Database Description packet, the "master (MS) bit" 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: "The Synchronization of Databases" (Section 7.2),
   "The Neighbor Data Structure" (Section 10), "Neighbor states"
   (Section 10.1), "Events causing neighbor state changes"
   (Section 10.2), "The Neighbor state machine" (Section 10.3),
   "Receiving Database Description Packets" (Section 10.6), "Sending
   Database Description Packets" (Section 10.8), "An Example"
   (Section 10.10), and "The Database Description packet"
   (Appendix A.3.3).

3.  Update to RFC 4222

   "Prioritized Treatment of Specific OSPF Version 2 Packets and
   Congestion Avoidance" [RFC4222] is a Best Current Practice (BCP)
   document.  In Appendix C, Item (2), there is an example OSFPv2 packet
   sequence that refers to the "slave" in a database exchange; this
   reference is renamed to "Follower".

4.  Update to RFC 4811

   "OSPF Out-of-Band Link State Database (LSDB) Resynchronization"
   [RFC4811] is an Informational document.  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".

5.  Update to RFC 5243

   "OSPF Database Exchange Summary List Optimization" [RFC5243] is an
   Informational document.  The Introduction (Section 1) references
   "Master or Slave"; this is replaced by "Leader or Follower".
   Section 3 includes an example of the optimized database exchange.  In
   this example, all instances of "Master" and "Slave" are renamed to
   "Leader" and "Follower", respectively.

6.  Update to RFC 5340

   The base OSPFv3 specification "OSPF for IPv6" [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.

   In the Database Description packet, the "Master/Slave (MS) bit" is
   renamed the "Leader (L) bit".

   The operation of OSPFv3 is not modified.  The Leader/Follower
   terminology and Leader (L) bit definition changes impact "The
   Database Description Packet" (Appendix A.3.3).

7.  Update to RFC 5614

   "Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Extension of OSPF Using Connected
   Dominating Set (CDS) Flooding" [RFC5614] is an Experimental document.
   "Changes to the Neighbor State Machine" (Section 7.1) contains
   modifications to the neighbor state machine that were updated from
   [RFC2328].  In the neighbor state machine modifications, all
   instances of "Master" and "Slave" are renamed to "Leader" and
   "Follower", respectively.  Additionally, all instances of "MS" (when
   referring to the Database Description packet bit) are renamed to "L".
   And in "Receiving Database Description Packets" (Section 7.5),
   "master or slave" is replaced by "Leader or Follower" in the
   parenthetical.

8.  Update to RFC 5838

   "Support of Address Families in OSPFv3" [RFC5838] is a Standards
   Track document.  "Database Description Maximum Transmission Unit
   (MTU) Specification for Non-IPv6 AFs" (Section 2.7) contains a
   Database Description packet change figure that includes the MS bit.
   In this figure, the "MS" field is renamed the "L" field.

   Additionally, in the first paragraph of "Changes to the Hello Packet
   Processing" (Section 2.4), 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 an
   |  IPv4 AF, packets could be routed toward this interface and
   |  dropped.  This could happen due to misconfiguration or a router
   |  software downgrade.  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 OSPFv3
   |  Router-LSAs and Network-LSAs are AF-agnostic.

9.  IANA Considerations

   In the "Database Description (DD) Packet Flags" registry, IANA has
   updated the description for value 0x01 to "Leader (L-bit)" and has
   added this document as a reference, as shown below.

   Value:  0x01
   Description:  Leader (L-bit)
   Reference:  [RFC2328] [RFC9454]

10.  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.

11.  References

11.1.  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>.

11.2.  Informative References

   [NISTIR8366]
              National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
              "Guidance for NIST Staff on Using Inclusive Language in
              Documentary Standards", NIST Interagency/Internal Report
              (NISTIR) 8366, April 2021,
              <https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8366>.

Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Dhruv Dhody, Adrian Farrel, Erik Kline, and Barry Leiba for
   their reviews and comments.

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, L.L.C.
   301 Midenhall Way
   Cary, NC 27513
   United States of America
   Email: acee.ietf@gmail.com

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