[auth48] R: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9343 <draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-17> for your review

[Mauro Cociglio <[e-mail]>]

Hi Karen,
I approve this RFC for publication.
Best Regards,

Mauro

-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: Karen Moore <[e-mail]> 
Inviato: mercoledì 14 dicembre 2022 00:53
A: Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola=[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Oggetto: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9343 <draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-17> for your review

Hi Giuseppe,

Thank you for your reply.  We have updated our files accordingly and have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document.

The updated XML file is here:
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9343.xml

The updated output files are here:
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9343.txt
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9343.pdf
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9343.html

This diff file shows all changes made during AUTH48:
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9343-auth48diff.html

This diff file shows all changes made to date:
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9343-diff.html

Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the most recent version. Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC.

Please contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form.  We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the publication process.

For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9343

Thank you,

RFC Editor/kc


> On Dec 13, 2022, at 10:15 AM, Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> I slightly revised the reply to the first question about the keywords while I left unchanged the other replies. Please see inline tagged as [GF].
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Giuseppe
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Giuseppe Fioccola
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 12:07 PM
> To: '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>; Tianran 
> Zhou <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9343 <draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-17> 
> for your review
> 
> Hi,
> Thank you for your review.
> I approve this RFC for publication.
> Please find my replies inline tagged as [GF].
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Giuseppe
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 8:35 PM
> To: Giuseppe Fioccola <[e-mail]>; Tianran Zhou 
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9343 <draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-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] FYI: We updated the short title that spans the header of the PDF to match the document title (since there is adequate room). Also note that we hyphenated "Alternate Marking" in both titles for consistency.
> 
> Original:
>   IPv6 AMM
> 
> Current:
>   IPv6 Application of the Alternate-Marking Method
> -->
> 
> [GF]: Ok, thanks
> 
> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear 
> in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
> 
> [GF]: Extension, Header, Option, Destination, Hop-By-Hop, Performance, Measurement, Monitoring, Passive, Hybrid, Loss, Delay, Delay Variation, Multipoint, Cluster, Closed-Loop.
> 
> 
> 3) <!--[rfced] Does "it" refer to the Option Header? Also, will readers understand where it is "inserted or deleted" (is it along the path or other)? Please clarify.
> 
> Original:
>   In case of Hop-by-Hop Option Header carrying Alternate Marking
>   bits, it is not inserted or deleted, but can be read by any node
>   along the path. 
> 
> Perhaps:
>   In case of a Hop-by-Hop Option Header carrying Alternate-Marking
>   bits, the Option Header is not inserted or deleted on the path, 
>   but it can be read by any node along the path. 
> -->
> 
> [GF]: I'm ok with the replacement. I think your proposed text clarifies.
> 
> 4) <!-- [rfced] FYI: We've updated the following sentence as follows with regard to "only in case it is fully managed" for clarity. Please let us know if this changes the intended meaning.
> 
> Original:
>   The user equipment can be the starting or ending node, only in case
>   it is fully managed and if it belongs to the controlled domain.
> 
> Updated:
>   The user equipment can be the starting or ending node only when/if 
>   it is fully managed and belongs to the controlled domain.
> -->
> 
> [GF]: The updated sentence is ok.
> 
> 
> 5) <!-- [rfced] In the following sentence, what is meant by "it is required the hop-by-hop measurement"? Please clarify.
> 
> Original:
>   In many cases the end-to-end measurement is not enough and it is 
>   required the hop-by-hop measurement, so the most complete choice 
>   can be the Hop-by-Hop Options Header.
> 
> Perhaps:
>   In many cases, the end-to-end measurement is not enough, and the
>   hop-by-hop measurement is also required, so the most complete 
>   choice is the Hop-by-Hop Options Header.
> -->
> 
> [GF]: To clarify, I propose to rephrase as follows:
>   In many cases, the end-to-end measurement may not be enough, and 
>   the hop-by-hop measurement is required. To meet this need, the most 
>   complete choice is the Hop-by-Hop Options Header.
> 
> 6) <!-- [rfced] FYI: We have updated the following sentence as follows regarding "drop or assign packets" as it was unclear. Please let us know if this changes the intended meaning.
> 
> Original:
>   It is worth mentioning that Hop-by-Hop Options are not strongly
>   recommended in [RFC7045] and [RFC8200], unless there is a clear justification
>   to standardize it, because nodes may be configured to ignore the Options
>   Header, drop or assign packets containing an Options Header to a slow
>   processing path.
> 
> Updated:
>   It is worth mentioning that Hop-by-Hop Options are not strongly
>   recommended in [RFC7045] and [RFC8200], unless there is a clear justification
>   to standardize it, because nodes may be configured to ignore the Options
>   Header or drop or assign packets containing an Options Header to a slow
>   processing path.
> -->
> 
> [GF]: Ok
> 
> 7) <!--[rfced] Since this does not appear to be a direct quote, we rephrased "skip if do not recognize and data do no change en route" to "skip if not recognized and the data does not change en route". Please let us know of any objections.
> 
> Original:
>   Indeed, the three high-order bits of the Options
>   Header defined in this draft are 000 and, in theory, as per [RFC8200]
>   and [I-D.ietf-6man-hbh-processing], this means "skip if do not
>   recognize and data do not change en route".  
> 
> Current:
>   Indeed, the three high-order bits of the Options
>   Header defined in this draft are 000 and, in theory, as per [RFC8200]
>   and [HBH-OPTIONS-PROCESSING], this means "skip if not
>   recognized and data does not change en route".  
> -->
> 
> [GF]: Ok
> 
> 8) <!--[rfced] Is the intended meaning that counter-based batches are treated the same as timer-based ones (i.e., there are no differences in the rules)? Please clarify.
> 
> Original:
>   There is no definitive rule for counter-based batches 
>   differently from timer-based batches. 
> 
> Perhaps:
>   There is no definitive rule for counter-based batches; 
>   the same rules apply for both counter- and time-based
>   batches.
> -->
> 
> [GF]: In RFC8321bis we stated that only the method based on a fixed timer is specified while the method based on a fixed number of packets is not detailed and is considered out of scope.
> For this reason, I propose to revise the sentence as follows:
>   Unlike the timer-based batches, there is no definitive rule 
>   for counter-based batches, which are not considered in 
>   [I-D.ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis].
> 
> 9) <!-- [rfced] In the following sentence, we updated "and out-of-order of the packets" to "and out-of-order packets". If that changes the intended meaning, please let us know.
> 
> Original:
>   These can create offsets between the batches and out-of-order 
>   of the packets. 
> 
> Current:
>   These can create offsets between the batches and 
>   out-of-order packets.
> -->
> 
> [GF]: Ok
> 
> 10) <!-- [rfced] In the following sentence, what is meant by "the available counting interval where to get stable counters"?
> 
> Original:
>   The assumption is to define the available counting interval where to
>   get stable counters and to avoid these issues.
> 
> Perhaps:
>   The assumption is to define the available counting interval to
>   get stable counters and to avoid these issues.
> -->
> 
> [GF]: I think your proposed sentence is ok.
> 
> 
> 11) <!--[rfced] FYI: We updated one instance of "perform measurements" to "performance measurements" for consistency.  If that is not correct, please let us know.
> 
> Original:
>   This document aims to apply a method to perform measurements that
>   does not directly affect Internet security nor applications that run
>   on the Internet.
> 
> Current:
>   This document aims to apply a method to the performance measurements that
>   does not directly affect Internet security nor applications that run
>   on the Internet.
> -->
> 
> [GF]: Ok
> 
> 12) <!--[rfced] FYI: "draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit" is expired and has been replaced by "draft-ietf-pce-pcep-ifit"; the reference entry has been updated accordingly.
> -->
> 
> [GF]: Thanks
> 
> 13) <!--[rfced] FYI: We changed "precious" to "valuable" to match the wording in RFC-to-be 9432.
> 
> Original:
>   The authors would like to thank Bob Hinden, Ole Troan, Martin Duke,
>   Lars Eggert, Roman Danyliw, Alvaro Retana, Eric Vyncke, Warren
>   Kumari, Benjamin Kaduk, Stewart Bryant, Christopher Wood, Yoshifumi
>   Nishida, Tom Herbert, Stefano Previdi, Brian Carpenter, Greg Mirsky,
>   Ron Bonica for the precious comments and suggestions.
> 
> Current:
>   The authors would like to thank Bob Hinden, Ole Troan, Martin Duke, 
>   Lars Eggert, Roman Danyliw, Alvaro Retana, Eric Vyncke, Warren Kumari, 
>   Benjamin Kaduk, Stewart Bryant, C. A. Wood, Yoshifumi Nishida, 
>   Tom Herbert, Stefano Previdi, Brian Carpenter, Greg Mirsky, and Ron 
>   Bonica for their valuable comments and suggestions.
> -->
> 
> [GF]: Ok
> 
> 14) <!-- [rfced] This document uses "AltMark Option" with and without the article "the". For consistency and readability, we included the article. If any further changes are needed, please let us know.
> 
> [GF]: Thanks
> 
> One example
> 
> Original:
>   Alternate Marking measurements could be harmed by routers altering
>   the fields of the AltMark Option (e.g., marking of the packets, FlowMonID) or
>   by a malicious attacker adding AltMark Option to the packets in order to
>   consume the resources of network devices and entities involved.
> 
> Current:
>   Alternate-Marking measurements could be harmed by routers altering
>   the fields of the AltMark Option (e.g., marking of the packets or FlowMonID) or
>   by a malicious attacker adding the AltMark Option to the packets in order to
>   consume the resources of network devices and entities involved.
> -->
> 
> [GF]: Ok
> 
> 15) <!-- [rfced] Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how they may be made consistent.
> 
> "Data Fields" vs. "data fields"
>    [For example, "AlMark data fields" vs. "Option Data Fields"]
> 
> [GF]: AltMark Data Fields can be made consistent. The other occurrences are ok.
> 
> "Destination Options Header" vs. "Destination Options header" vs.
> "Destination Option Header" vs. "Destination Options Header"
>    [Note: Option vs. Options and Header vs. header]
> 
> [GF]: We can make it consistent and use only "Destination Options Header"
> 
> "Extension Header Option" vs. "Options Extension Headers"
>    [Note: are these terms different or the same?
> 
> [GF]: We can use only the term "Extension Header Option"
> 
> "Hop-by-Hop Options Header" vs. "Hop-by-Hop Options header" vs. 
> "Hop-by-Hop Option Header"
>     [Note: Option vs. Options and Header vs. header]
> 
> [GF]: We can make it consistent and use only "Hop-by-Hop Options Header"
> 
> "Option Header" vs. "Options Header" vs. "Options header"
> 
> [GF]: We can use only " Options Header"
> 
> FYI: We made the following terms lowercase for consistency. 
> Please let us know of any concerns.
> 
> data collection
> calculation
> IPv6 header
> network graph
> use case
> 
> [GF]: Ok
> 
> FYI: The case of these terms was updated to match use in the other C466 documents:
> 
> Alternate-Marking Method
> Alternate-Marking methodology
> Alternate Marking (no hyphen when not followed by a noun)  Single 
> Marking  Double Marking  cluster
> 
> [GF]: Ok
> -->
> 
> 
> 16) <!-- [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.  
> 
> In addition, please consider whether "traditional" should be updated 
> for clarity.  While the NIST website 
> <https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publ
> ications-author-instructions#table1>
> indicates that this term is potentially biased, it is also ambiguous.
> "Traditional" is a subjective term, as it is not the same for everyone.
> 
> [GF]: We can replace traditional with conventional
> 
> -->
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> RFC Editor/re/kc
> 
> 
> 
> On Dec 12, 2022, at 11:33 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> *****IMPORTANT*****
> 
> Updated 2022/12/12
> 
> 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
> 
>  *  [e-mail] (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).
> 
>  *  [e-mail], 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-4Q9l2USxI
> Ae6P8O4Zc
> 
>    *  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, 
>       [e-mail] 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/rfc9343.xml
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9343.html
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9343.pdf
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9343.txt
> 
> Diff file of the text:
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9343-diff.html
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9343-rfcdiff.html (side by 
> side)
> 
> Diff of the XML: 
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9343-xmldiff1.html
> 
> The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own diff files of the XML.  
> 
> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9343.original.v2v3.xml
> 
> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
> only: 
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9343.form.xml
> 
> 
> Tracking progress
> -----------------
> 
> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9343
> 
> Please let us know if you have any questions.  
> 
> Thank you for your cooperation,
> 
> RFC Editor
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC9343 (draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-alt-mark-17)
> 
> Title            : IPv6 Application of the Alternate Marking Method
> Author(s)        : G. Fioccola, T. Zhou, M. Cociglio, F. Qin, R. Pang
> WG Chair(s)      : Bob Hinden, Ole Trøan, Jen Linkova
> 
> Area Director(s) : Erik Kline, Éric Vyncke
> 
> 
> 
>