Re: [auth48] [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9288 <draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering-10> for your review

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Hello, Alana,

I did a full-read of the document, and found a few errors, which I've 
fixed (e.g., there was one (clearly incorrect) title, a reference to an 
incorrect RFC, etc.)

Where necessary, I've inserted comments marked as "[fgont]" with 
specific requests or questions to the RFC-Editor.

Thanks!

Regards,
Fernando




On 9/8/22 18:12, Alanna Paloma wrote:
> Hi *Warren and Fernando,
> 
> *Warren - As the AD, please review and approve of the updated text in Sections 3.1 and 4.4.15.4 as well as the removal of “including protocols” in Section 3.5.6.4 in the diff file below.
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9288-ad-diff.html
> 
> Fernando - Thank you for your reply. We have updated as requested with a few notes:
> 
> 1) We have updated this sentence in Section 3.5.2.2 as follows. Please review and confirm that this is the intended meaning.
> 
> Previously:
>     The Routing Header Type 0 (RHT0) had
>     originally been specified in [RFC2460], which was later obsoleted by
>     [RFC5095], and thus removed from [RFC8200].
> 
> Current:
>    The Routing Type 0 had
>     originally been specified in [RFC2460] and was later obsoleted by
>     [RFC5095]; thus, it was removed from [RFC8200].
> 
> 2) We have reverted instances of "Experiment in the style of RFC 3692” back to "RFC3692-style Experiment” to match usage in RFC 4727 and IANA registries.
> 
> 
> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9288.xml
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9288.txt
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9288.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9288.pdf
> 
> The relevant diff files have been posted here:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9288-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9288-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes)
> 
> Please review the document carefully as documents do not change once published as RFCs.
> 
> We will await any further changes you may have and approvals from each author and the *AD prior to moving forward in the publication process.
> 
> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9288
> 
> Thank you,
> RFC Editor/ap
> 
>> On Aug 9, 2022, at 4:10 AM, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, RFC-Ed,
>>
>> Attached you'll find my edits for the aforementioned upcoming RFC. You will find my comments and responses marked with "[fgont]" within the attached XML source.
>>
>> Some meta issues:
>>
>> 1) It seems that bullets have been removed from your edited version, but
>>    I believe the use of bullets is good when listing items (such as IPv6
>>    options)
>>
>> 3) In several parts we used "RFC3692-Style experiments", since that's
>>    how these options and EHs are marked/specified in [RFC3692] and
>>    [RFC4727].  I've just realized that this your style guidelines
>>    recommend against this. OTOH, that how the corresponding
>>    options/headers are defined specified in the corresponding RFCs
>>    (RFC3692 and RFC4927). Thoughts?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Regards,
>> Fernando
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/8/22 20:53, [e-mail] wrote:
>>> Authors,
>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
>>> the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search.
>>> -->
>>> 2) <!--[rfced] We see a number of author-inserted comments in the .xml file for this
>>> document. We are unsure if these have been resolved. Please review and let us know
>>> if these can be deleted or if they need to be addressed.
>>> -->
>>> 3) <!--[rfced] May we update this text as follows to add "IPv6" before
>>> "option type"? Additionally, may we update instances of "IPv6 option
>>> type" to "IPv6 Option Type" per use in RFC 7731?
>>> Original:
>>>     *  Permit this IPv6 EH or IPv6 Option type.
>>>     *  Drop packets containing this IPv6 EH or option type.
>>>     *  Reject packets containing this IPv6 EH or option type (where the
>>>        packet drop is signaled with an ICMPv6 error message).
>>>     *  Rate-limit traffic containing this IPv6 EH or option type.
>>>     *  Ignore this IPv6 EH or option type (as if it was not present) and
>>>        process the packet according the rules for the remaining headers.
>>> Perhaps:
>>>     *  Permit this IPv6 EH or IPv6 Option Type.
>>>     *  Drop packets containing this IPv6 EH or IPv6 Option Type.
>>>     *  Reject packets containing this IPv6 EH or IPv6 Option Type (where the
>>>        packet drop is signaled with an ICMPv6 error message).
>>>     *  Rate-limit traffic containing this IPv6 EH or IPv6 Option Type.
>>>     *  Ignore this IPv6 EH or IPv6 Option Type (as if it was not present), and
>>>        process the packet according the rules for the remaining headers.
>>> -->
>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in this document
>>> should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container for
>>> content that is semantically less important or tangential to the
>>> content that surrounds it" (https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/xml2rfc-doc.html#name-aside-2).
>>> -->
>>> 5) <!--[rfced] Should instances of "CALIPSO option" be updated to
>>> "CALIPSO" to avoid redundancy (if expanded, "CALIPSO option"
>>> would be read as "Common Architecture Label IPv6 Security Option
>>> option". Please review and let us know if any updates are needed.
>>> -->
>>> 6) <!--[rfced] The following introductory sentence needs more context
>>> (i.e., why is the Quick-Start functionality being disabled?).
>>> Please let us know if the suggested text is agreeable or if you
>>> prefer otherwise.
>>> Original:
>>>     4.4.9.4.  Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked
>>>       The Quick-Start functionality would be disabled, and additional
>>>       delays in TCP's connection establishment (for example) could be
>>>       introduced. (Please see Section 4.7.2 of [RFC4782].)
>>> Perhaps:
>>>     4.4.9.4.  Operational and Interoperability Impact If Blocked
>>>       If the Quick-Start functionality is blocked, it would be disabled, and
>>>       additional delays in the TCP's connection establishment, for example,
>>>       could be introduced; please see Section 4.7.2 of [RFC4782].
>>> -->
>>> 7) <!--[rfced] For consistency, we updated "Hop-by-Hop Option headers" to "Hop-by-Hop Options headers" in the following. If that is not correct, please let us know.
>>> Original:
>>>     This option is specified in [RFC7731], and is meant to be included
>>>     only in Hop-by-Hop Option headers.
>>> Perhaps:
>>>     This option is specified in [RFC7731] and is meant to be included
>>>     only in Hop-by-Hop Options headers.
>>> -->
>>> 8) <!--[rfced] May we update the latter part of this sentence for clarity as follows?
>>> Original:
>>>     This option is employed by Identifier-Locator Network Protocol
>>>     for IPv6 (ILNPv6) for providing protection against off-path attacks
>>>     for packets when ILNPv6 is in use, and as a signal during initial
>>>     network-layer session creation that ILNPv6 is proposed for use with
>>>     this network-layer session, rather than classic IPv6.
>>> Perhaps:
>>>     This option is employed by the Identifier-Locator Network Protocol
>>>     for IPv6 (ILNPv6) to provide protection against off-path attacks
>>>     for packets when ILNPv6 is in use and as a signal during initial
>>>     network-layer session creation where ILNPv6 is proposed for use
>>>     rather than classic IPv6.
>>> -->
>>> 9) <!-- [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.
>>> - Hop-by-Hop Options header vs. Hop-by-Hop Options EH
>>>      [Note: are these terms different or the same?]
>>> - IPv6 packet vs. IPv6 Packet
>>> - Routing Header Type vs. Routing Type
>>> - IP Option vs. IP options (note: capitalized in RFC 6744)
>>> - MPL Option vs. MPL option (note: capitalized in RFC 7731)
>>> - RPL Option vs.  RPL option (note: capitalized in RFC 9008))
>>> -->
>>> 10) <!-- [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.
>>> -->
>>> Thank you.
>>> RFC Editor/ap/kc
>>> On Aug 8, 2022, at 4:47 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>> Updated 2022/08/08
>>> 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/rfc9288.xml
>>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9288.html
>>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9288.pdf
>>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9288.txt
>>> Diff file of the text:
>>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9288-diff.html
>>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9288-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>>> Diff of the XML:
>>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9288-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/rfc9288.original.v2v3.xml
>>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
>>> only:
>>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9288.form.xml
>>> Tracking progress
>>> -----------------
>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9288
>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>>> RFC Editor
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> RFC9288 (draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering-10)
>>> Title            : Recommendations on the Filtering of IPv6 Packets Containing IPv6 Extension Headers at Transit Routers
>>> Author(s)        : F. Gont, W. LIU
>>> WG Chair(s)      : Jen Linkova, Ron Bonica
>>> Area Director(s) : Warren Kumari, Robert Wilton
>>
>> -- 
>> Fernando Gont
>> SI6 Networks
>> e-mail: [e-mail]
>> PGP Fingerprint: F242 FF0E A804 AF81 EB10 2F07 7CA1 321D 663B B494<rfc9288-fgont-20220808.xml>
> 

-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: F242 FF0E A804 AF81 EB10 2F07 7CA1 321D 663B B494