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

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Megan,
thank you for catching this issue that I've missed to acknowledge.

Yes, I agree with the proposed update.

Please let me know if there is any further issue.

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 1:38 PM Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Xiao and Greg,
>
> Thank you for your replies. We have updated the document as requested with
> the exception of the following:
>
> > Section #4.1
> > OLD:
> > a Your Discriminator equal to 0
> > NEW:
> > a Your Discriminator equals to 0
> >
> >
> Please review this request as the suggested text introduces a subject/verb
> agreement error.
>
> We have posted the updated files below.  Please review carefully as we do
> not make updates once the document is published as an RFC.
>
> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521.txt
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521.pdf
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521.xml
>
> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh):
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521-diff.html (comprehensive
> diff)
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521-auth48diff.html (AUTH48
> changes only)
>
> Please contact us with any further updates/questions/comments you may
> have.
>
> We will await approvals from each of the parties listed on the AUTH48
> status page prior to moving forward to publication.
>
> The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here:
>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9521
>
> Thank you.
>
> RFC Editor/mf
>
> > On Dec 18, 2023, at 1:29 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> >
> > 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 #1
> > OLD:
> > For simplicity, NVE is used
> > NEW:
> > For simplicity, a NVE is used
> >
> > Section #4
> > OLD:
> > TTL or Hop Limit:  These MUST be set to 255
> > NEW:
> > TTL or Hop Limit:  The TTL for IPv4 or Hop Limit for IPv6 MUST be set to
> 255
> >
> > Section #4
> > OLD:
> > Geneve specification [RFC8926] depending on
> > NEW:
> > Geneve specification ([RFC8926]) depending on
> >
> > Section #4.1
> > OLD:
> > N-to-1 mapping between a VAP and a VNI
> > NEW:
> > N-to-1 mapping between VAPs and VNIs
> >
> >
> >
> > Section #5
> > OLD:
> > TTL or Hop Limit:  These MUST be set to 255
> > NEW:
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>