Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9521 <draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve-13> for your review

[[e-mail]]

Dear RFC Editor,

Thanks for your efforts.
Please see inline my answers to your questions and several proposed editorial changes.

Original


From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
To: 肖敏10093570;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
Date: 2023年12月16日 01:10
Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9521 <draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve-13> 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] Please note that the title of the document has been
     updated as follows:
 
Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC
Style Guide"). Please review.
 
Original:
BFD for Geneve
 
Current:
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for Generic Network
Virtualization Encapsulation (Geneve)
--> 
 [XM]>>> Agreed.
 
2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
     the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> 
 [XM]>>> NVE, VAP, VNI.
 
3) <!--[rfced] For clarity, may we rephrase the run-on sentence below?
 
Original:  
This document supports establishing multiple BFD sessions between the
same pair of NVEs, each BFD session over a pair of VAPs residing in
the same pair of NVEs, there SHOULD be a mechanism to control the
maximum number of such sessions that can be active at the same time.
 
Perhaps:
This document supports establishing multiple BFD sessions between the
same pair of NVEs.  For each BFD session over a pair of VAPs residing
in the same pair of NVEs, there SHOULD be a mechanism to control the
maximum number of such sessions that can be active at the same time.
--> 
 [XM]>>> Agreed.
 
4) <!-- [rfced] We see a number of uses of the "/" character separating
     terms in this document.  Please review and let us know if we
     should adjust any of these instances to "and/or", "and", or "or" 
     for clarity and ease of the reader.
--> 
 [XM]>>> I don't see a need to adjust any of them. I believe it's common to say Ethernet/IP/UDP, Ethernet/IP, IP/UDP, etc.
 
5) <!-- [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.
--> 
 [XM]>>> I don't see a need for any changes. Thank you for the reminder.
 
[XM]>>> Besides the above answers to your questions, I propose a few editorial changes as below.
Section #1OLD:For simplicity, NVE is usedNEW:For simplicity, a NVE is used
Section #4OLD:TTL or Hop Limit:  These MUST be set to 255NEW:TTL or Hop Limit:  The TTL for IPv4 or Hop Limit for IPv6 MUST be set to 255
Section #4OLD:Geneve specification [RFC8926] depending onNEW:Geneve specification ([RFC8926]) depending on
Section #4.1OLD:N-to-1 mapping between a VAP and a VNINEW:N-to-1 mapping between VAPs and VNIs
Section #4.1OLD:a Your Discriminator equal to 0NEW:a Your Discriminator equals to 0
Section #5OLD:TTL or Hop Limit:  These MUST be set to 255NEW:TTL or Hop Limit:  The TTL for IPv4 or Hop Limit for IPv6 MUST be set to 255

Best Regards,
Xiao Min


Thank you.
 
RFC Editor/kf/mf
 
*****IMPORTANT*****
 
Updated 2023/12/15
 
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/rfc9521.xml
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521.txt
 
Diff file of the text:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
 
Diff of the XML:  
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521-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/rfc9521.original.v2v3.xml  
 
XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates  
only:  
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521.form.xml
 
 
Tracking progress
-----------------
 
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9521
 
Please let us know if you have any questions.   
 
Thank you for your cooperation,
 
RFC Editor
 
--------------------------------------
RFC9521 (draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve-13)
 
Title            : BFD for Geneve
Author(s)        : X. Min, G. Mirsky, S. Pallagatti, J. Tantsura, S. Aldrin
WG Chair(s)      : Matthew Bocci, Sam Aldrin
Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston