Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9419 <draft-iab-path-signals-collaboration-03> for your review

[[e-mail]]

Authors,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.

1) <!--[rfced] Would it be correct to rephrase the document title as
follows for clarity (i.e., "Application Considerations for"
instead of "Considerations on Application -")?

Original:
   Considerations on Application - Network Collaboration 
   Using Path Signals

Perhaps:
   Application Considerations for Network Collaboration 
   Using Path Signals
-->


2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. 
-->


3) <!--[rfced] Informative reference RFC 793 has been obsoleted by RFC 9293.
Per Section 4.8.6 in the RFC Style Guide (RFC 7322), we recommend
replacing RFC 793 with RFC 9293.  May we update the reference? 

Original:
   For instance, on-path elements use various fields of the 
   TCP header [RFC0793] to derive information about 
   end-to-end latency as well as congestion. 

Suggested: 
   For instance, on-path elements use various fields of the 
   TCP header [RFC9293] to derive information about 
   end-to-end latency as well as congestion. 
-->


4) <!-- [rfced] FYI, to make the two categories easier to read, we
formatted this text as a list. Please let us know of any
objections.

Original:
   Many protocol mechanisms throughout the stack fall into one of two
   categories: authenticated and private communication that is only
   visible to a very limited set of parties, often one on each "end";
   and unauthenticated public communication that is also visible to all
   network elements on a path.

Current:
   Many protocol mechanisms throughout the stack fall into one of two
   categories:

   *  authenticated private communication that is only visible to a
      very limited set of parties, often one on each "end", and

   *  unauthenticated public communication that is visible to all
      network elements on a path.
-->


5) <!--[rfced] To avoid using "ensures" and "ensuring" in close
proximity, may we rephrase this sentence as follows?

Original:
   For instance, QUIC replaces TCP for various applications and ensures
   end-to-end signals are only accessible by the endpoints, ensuring
   evolvability [RFC9000]. 

Perhaps:
   For instance, QUIC replaces TCP for various applications so that
   end-to-end signals are only accessible by the endpoints, ensuring
   the ability to evolve [RFC9000]. 
-->


6) <!-- [rfced] FYI, to make the items easier to read, we formatted this text
as a list. Please let us know of any objections.

Original:
   Authentication and trust
   must be considered in both directions: how endpoints trust and
   authenticate signals from network path elements, and how network path
   elements trust and authenticate signals from endpoints.

Current:
   Authentication and trust 
   must be considered in both directions:

   *  how endpoints trust and authenticate signals from network path
      elements and

   *  how network path elements trust and authenticate signals from
      endpoints.
-->


7) <!--[rfced] We rephrased this sentence for clarity; please let us know
of any objections.

Original:
   This section also provides some examples and explanation 
   of situations that not following the principles can lead to.

Current:
   This section also provides some examples and explanation 
   of situations that can arise when the principles are not 
   followed.
-->


8) <!-- [rfced] Please clarify "they are from and to other parties". Would "they
are coming from and going to other parties" help clarify?

Original:
   Note that these communications are conceptually
   independent of the base flow, even if they share a packet; they are
   from and to other parties, rather than creating a multiparty
   communication.

Perhaps:
   Note that these communications are conceptually
   independent of the base flow, even if they share a packet; they are
   coming from and going to other parties, rather than creating a 
   multiparty communication.
-->


9) <!-- [rfced] We would like to rephrase this information as follows for
clarity and to reduce redundancy. Please let us know if the
preferred text is agreeable or if you prefer otherwise.

Original:
   The goal is that any information should be provided knowingly, for a
   specific purpose, sent in signals designed for that purpose, and that
   any use of information should be done within that purpose.  And that
   an analysis of the security and privacy implications of the specific
   purpose and associated information is needed.

Perhaps:
   The goal is that any information should be provided knowingly for a
   specific purpose, sent in signals designed for that purpose, and used 
   within that purpose. In addition, an analysis of the security and privacy 
   implications of the specific purpose and associated information is needed.
-->


10) <!--[rfced] Would it be clearer to say "Even if" instead of "Whether"
and "it does not mean" instead of "it does not follow" in the
following sentence?

Original:
   Whether a communication is with an application server or
   network element that can be shown to be associated with a particular
   domain name, it does not follow that information about the user can
   be safely sent to it.

Perhaps:
   Even if communication with an application server or network
   element can be shown to be associated with a particular
   domain name, it does not mean that information about the
   user can be safely sent to it.
-->


11) <!--[rfced] The following list is not parallel. Please let us know if
the perhaps text captures the intended meaning.

Original:
   And of course we need to choose such cases where the collaboration 
   can be performed safely, is not a privacy concern, and the 
   incentives of the relevant parties are aligned.

Perhaps:
   And, of course, we need to choose such cases where the collaboration 
   can be performed safely, there are no privacy concerns, and the 
   incentives of the relevant parties are aligned.
-->


12) <!--[rfced] Some of the bullet points in this list begin with a
complete sentence and some begin with a fragmented sentence (see
#4, #5, and #6). Please let us know if/how we may make the list
parallel.

Original:
   *  Some forms of collaboration may depend on business arrangements,
      which may or may not be easy to put in place. 

   *  Secure communications with path elements is needed as discussed in
      Section 2.3. 
  
   *  The use of path signals for reducing the effects of denial-of-
      service attacks, e.g., perhaps modern forms of "source quench"
      designs could be developed. 

   *  Ways of protecting information when held by network elements or
      servers, beyond communications security.

   *  Sharing information from networks to applications.  

   *  Sharing information from applications to networks. 

   *  Data privacy regimes generally deal with more issues than merely
      whether some information is shared with another party or not.

   *  The present work has focused on the technical aspects of making
      collaboration safe and mutually beneficial, but of course,
      deployments need to take into account various regulatory and other
      policy matters. 
-->


13) <!--[rfced] For better readability, we combined the following
sentences. Please let us know if this is accurate or please clarify. 

Original:
   Finding practical ways for this has been difficult, both from the 
   mechanics and scalability point view.  And also because there
   is no easy way to find out which parties to trust or what trust
   roots would be appropriate.

Current:
   Finding practical ways for this has been difficult, both from the 
   mechanics and scalability point of view, especially because there
   is no easy way to find out which parties to trust or what trust
   roots would be appropriate.
-->


14) <!--[rfced] May we rephrase this sentence for clarity as follows?

Original:
   Data privacy regimes generally deal with more issues than merely
   whether some information is shared with another party or not.

Perhaps:
   Data privacy regimes generally deal with multiple issues, not just
   whether or not some information is shared with another party.
-->


15) <!-- [rfced] IAB Formatting

a) Please review the guidance for IAB documents
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/iab-format.txt> and let us know if any
changes are needed.

Note that if you include an "IAB Members at the Time of Approval" section
(since this document has IAB consensus), it will appear before the 
Acknowledgements section and will list the members listed on <https://www.iab.org/about/iab-members/> unless you specify otherwise. 
-->


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.

Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should 
still be reviewed as a best practice.
-->


Thank you.

RFC Editor/st/kc


On Jun 1, 2023, at 11:52 AM, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2023/06/01

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-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, 
       [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/rfc9419.xml
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9419.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9419.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9419.txt

Diff file of the text:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9419-diff.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9419-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9419-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/rfc9419.original.v2v3.xml 

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
only: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9419.form.xml


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9419

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9419 (draft-iab-path-signals-collaboration-03)

Title            : Considerations on Application - Network Collaboration Using Path Signals
Author(s)        : J. Arkko, T. Hardie, T. Pauly, M. Kuehlewind
WG Chair(s)      : 
Area Director(s) :