Re: [auth48] [ADs] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9359 <draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-10> for your review

[[e-mail]]

Authors and *ADs,

[*ADs - please see question 9 below.]

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

1) <!-- [rfced] We had the following questions regarding the document's title.

a) Please note that the title of the document has been
     updated as follows to more similarly match related recently
     published RFCs.

Original:
Echo Request/Reply for Enabled In-situ OAM Capabilities

Current: 
Echo Request/Reply for Enabled In Situ OAM (IOAM) Capabilities

b) Please review the short title of the document as "Ping" is only mentioned 
briefly in this document.

Original:
Ping Enabled IOAM Capabilities 
-->


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


3) <!-- [rfced] FYI, to avoid run-on sentence structure, we updated this
following paragraph (adding "and" in "... NETCONF Client, and each IOAM
..." and adding "so" in "... NETCONF Server, so complexity can be
..."). Please let us know any objections.

Original:
   *  When NETCONF/YANG is used in this scenario, each IOAM
      encapsulating node (including the host when it takes the role of
      an IOAM encapsulating node) needs to implement a NETCONF Client,
      each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating node (including the host
      when it takes the role of an IOAM decapsulating node) needs to
      implement a NETCONF Server, the complexity can be an issue.
      Furthermore, each IOAM encapsulating node needs to establish a
      NETCONF Connection with each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating
      node, so scalability can be an issue.

Current:
   *  When NETCONF/YANG is used in this scenario, each IOAM
      encapsulating node (including the host when it takes the role of
      an IOAM encapsulating node) needs to implement a NETCONF Client,
      and each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating node (including the host
      when it takes the role of an IOAM decapsulating node) needs to
      implement a NETCONF Server, so complexity can be an issue.
      Furthermore, each IOAM encapsulating node needs to establish a
      NETCONF Connection with each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating
      node, so scalability can be an issue.
--> 


4) <!--[rfced] This text may need some clarification.  If the "perhaps"
     text does not convey the intended meaning, please rephrase.

Original:
   SoP (Size of POT) field has two bits, which means the size of "PktID"
   and "Cumulative" data that are specified in Section 4.5 of [RFC9197].

Perhaps:
   The SoP (Size of POT) field has two bits, which means the size of
   "PktID" and "Cumulative" data are those that are specified in
   Section 4.5 of [RFC9197].
-->


5) <!-- [rfced] FYI - we have updated this text to use a list format for
     the ease of the reader.  Please let us know any objections.

Original:
   Once the IOAM encapsulating node is triggered to discover the enabled
   IOAM capabilities of each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating node,
   the IOAM encapsulating node will send echo requests that include the
   IOAM Capabilities Query Container.  First, with TTL equal to 1 to
   reach the closest node, which may be an IOAM transit node or not.
   Then with TTL equal to 2 to reach the second-nearest node, which also
   may be an IOAM transit node or not.  And further, increasing by 1 the
   TTL every time the IOAM encapsulating node sends a new echo request,
   until the IOAM encapsulating node receives an echo reply sent by the
   IOAM decapsulating node, which contains the IOAM Capabilities
   Response Container including the IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities
   Object or the IOAM End-of-Domain Object. 

Current:
   Once the IOAM encapsulating node is triggered to discover the enabled
   IOAM capabilities of each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating node,
   the IOAM encapsulating node will send echo requests that include the
   IOAM Capabilities Query Container as follows:

   *  First, with TTL equal to 1 to reach the closest node (which may or
      may not be an IOAM transit node).

   *  Then, with TTL equal to 2 to reach the second-nearest node (which
      also may or may not be an IOAM transit node).

   *  Then, further increasing by 1 the TTL every time the IOAM
      encapsulating node sends a new echo request, until the IOAM
      encapsulating node receives an echo reply sent by the IOAM
      decapsulating node (which contains the IOAM Capabilities Response
      Container including the IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object or
      the IOAM End-of-Domain Object).
-->


6) <!--[rfced] We do not see "RFC Required" mentioned at 
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ioam-capabilities/ioam-capabilities.xhtml.

Please let us know if the registry needs an update of if the following text in this 
document needs an update.

Original:
   New registries in this group can be created via RFC Required process
   as per [RFC8126].

-->


7) <!-- [rfced] FYI, to make the hierarchy of phrases ("whether ...", "whether
...", and "once ...") more clear, we updated the example in the sentence
to the following. Please let us know any objections.

Original:
   An implementation can also check whether the fields in received echo
   requests and replies strictly conform to the specifications, e.g.,
   whether the list of IOAM Namespace-IDs includes duplicate entries,
   whether the received Namespace-ID is an operator-assigned or IANA-
   assigned one, once a check fails, an exception event indicating the
   checked field should be reported to the management.

Current:
   An implementation can also check whether the fields in received echo
   requests and replies strictly conform to the specifications, e.g.,
   whether the list of IOAM Namespace-IDs includes duplicate entries
   and whether the received Namespace-ID is an operator-assigned or IANA-
   assigned one, once a check fails, an exception event indicating the
   checked field should be reported to the management.
-->


8) <!-- [rfced] For the reference entry for [I-D.ietf-bier-ping], the
     first author's name appears differently in various locations. How
     may we update for accuracy and consistency?

"N. Kumar" in original
"N.K. Nainar" in current (xi:include)
"N. Nainar" in past RFCs
-->


9) <!-- [rfced] *ADs - please review and approve the changes to Sections
     1, 2.2, 3.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.5, and 3.2.6 that
     were submitted by the authors while this document was in our
     queue. They are as follows:


Section 1:

a)
Original: 
      Furthermore, each IOAM encapsulating node needs to establish
      NETCONF Connection with each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating
      node, the scalability can be an issue.

Updated: 
      Furthermore, each IOAM encapsulating node needs to establish a
      NETCONF Connection with each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating
      node, so scalability can be an issue.

b)
Original:
   Fate sharing is a common requirement for all kinds of active OAM
   packets, echo request is among them, in this document that means echo
   request is required to traverse a path of IOAM data packet.  This
   requirement can be achieved by, e.g., applying same explicit path or
   ECMP processing to both echo request and IOAM data packet.  Specific	
   to apply same ECMP processing to both echo request and IOAM data
   packet, one possible way is to populate the same value(s) of ECMP
   affecting field(s) in the echo request.

Updated:
   Fate sharing is a common requirement for all kinds of active OAM
   packets including echo request.  In this document that means echo
   request is required to traverse the path of an IOAM data packet.
   This requirement can be achieved by, e.g., applying the same explicit
   path or ECMP processing to both echo request and IOAM data packets.
   Specifically, the same ECMP processing can be applied to both echo
   request and IOAM data packets, by populating the same value(s) in
   ECMP affecting field(s) of the packets.

.....

Section 2.2:

Added to Abbreviations List:
   SoP: Size of POT
   TSF: TimeStamp Format
.....

Section 3.2:

Original:
   A list of IOAM capabilities objects (one
   or more objects) which contains the enabled IOAM capabilities MUST be
   included in this container of echo reply except the sender encounters
   an error (e.g., no matched Namespace-ID).

Updated:
   A list of IOAM capabilities objects (one
   or more objects) which contains the enabled IOAM capabilities MUST be
   included in this container of echo reply unless the sender encounters
   an error (e.g., no matched Namespace-ID).

.....

Sections 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, and 3.2.5:

Original:
   Reserved field is reserved for future use and MUST be set to zero,
   and MUST be ignored when non-zero.

Updated:
   Reserved field MUST be zeroed on transmission and ignored on receipt.

.....

Section 3.2.6:

a)
Original (in table):
   Must Be Zero

Updated:
   Reserved

b)
Original:
   When the IOAM
   edge-to-edge function is enabled at the IOAM decapsulating node, it's
   RECOMMENDED to include only the IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object
   but not the IOAM End-of-Domain Object.

Updated:
   When the IOAM
   edge-to-edge function is enabled at the IOAM decapsulating node,
   including only the IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object but not the
   IOAM End-of-Domain Object is RECOMMENDED.

c)
Added paragraph at end of section:
   Reserved field MUST be zeroed on transmission and ignored on receipt.

.....

Acknowledgements:
   Added "Donald Eastlake")

Original:
   The authors would like to acknowledge Tianran Zhou, Dhruv Dhody,
   Frank Brockners, Cheng Li, Gyan Mishra, Marcus Ihlar, Martin Duke,
   Chris Lonvick, Eric Vyncke, Alvaro Retana, Paul Wouters, Roman
   Danyliw, Lars Eggert, Warren Kumari, John Scudder, Robert Wilton,
   Erik Kline, Zaheduzzaman Sarker and Murray Kucherawy for their
   careful review and helpful comments.

Updated:
   The authors would like to acknowledge Tianran Zhou, Dhruv Dhody,
   Frank Brockners, Cheng Li, Gyan Mishra, Marcus Ihlar, Martin Duke,
   Chris Lonvick, Eric Vyncke, Alvaro Retana, Paul Wouters, Roman
   Danyliw, Lars Eggert, Warren Kumari, John Scudder, Robert Wilton,
   Erik Kline, Zaheduzzaman Sarker, Murray Kucherawy, and Donald Eastlake
   for their careful review and helpful comments.
-->


10) <!--[rfced] Terminology: we had the following questions related to the use of terminology 
throughout the document.

a) IOAM domain: we see "IOAM-Domain" in RFC 9197.  Please let us know if this term should be 
updated in this document.

b) Please review the use of both "Object Header" and "object header" in the body of Section 3.2.  
Should the capping scheme be made uniform there?  Note also that we see "Object" capped in the first sentence of all of the 3.2.* subsections.  Please confirm that this should not be made "object" or updated to the full name (e.g., in Section 3.2.6: "When the IOAM End-of-Domain Object is present...").

c) Should IOAM be added here?

Original:
   ...the End-of-Domain Object MUST be present in the IOAM Capabilities
   Response Container sent by an IOAM decapsulating node.

Perhaps:
   ...the IOAM End-of-Domain Object MUST be present in the IOAM Capabilities
   Response Container sent by an IOAM decapsulating node.-->


Thank you.

RFC Editor/st/mf

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2023/03/06

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/rfc9359.xml
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9359.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9359.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9359.txt

Diff file of the text:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9359-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9359-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9359-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/rfc9359.original.v2v3.xml 

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
only: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9359.form.xml


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

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9359

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9359 (draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-10)

Title            : Echo Request/Reply for Enabled In-situ OAM Capabilities
Author(s)        : X. Min, G. Mirsky, L. Bo
WG Chair(s)      : Marcus Ihlar, Tommy Pauly
Area Director(s) : Martin Duke, Zaheduzzaman Sarker