Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9378 <draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-deployment-05> for your review
Sarah Tarrant <starrant@amsl.com> Thu, 13 April 2023 16:19 UTC
Return-Path: <starrant@amsl.com>
X-Original-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35172C14CE44; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 09:19:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.397
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URI_NOVOWEL=0.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lfO_hfrUzDKY; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 09:19:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c8a.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5402CC14CF1F; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 09:19:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39C2E424FFE0; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 09:19:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Por-Iirymhw5; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 09:19:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [IPv6:2600:1700:8f1d:4000:5999:e271:bedd:ecec]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6CCA9424B443; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 09:19:50 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.400.51.1.1\))
From: Sarah Tarrant <starrant@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMFZu3MPmG2H-LaWYPWqDKVGo78CaTfN55xMu16Q_GHBeCTfkA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 11:19:38 -0500
Cc: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>, Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, daniel.bernier@bell.ca, ippm-ads@ietf.org, IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3D5C1449-9C33-4E4B-AB9F-6FB690F7AFBB@amsl.com>
References: <20230327211350.435D288A97@rfcpa.amsl.com> <MWHPR11MB1311A5052D16C984013AC85EDA939@MWHPR11MB1311.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CABUE3Xn+ihFCOW9-=pdxdgiiEfYH0hgE2vYC9wF=cRqGkSMEsg@mail.gmail.com> <208277D8-B187-4F3A-A111-014868A0512D@amsl.com> <MWHPR11MB1311D291CF4008E212376A8CDA9B9@MWHPR11MB1311.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <A2FCCE72-97C0-4EA1-84D4-FE749FB5E2D2@amsl.com> <CAM4esxRWEVVybCcOPJCSrvWFR_pajPO-MQZdxbCXbLJigGNjfQ@mail.gmail.com> <98A350E0-DC26-4892-A669-D9D0918A3AFD@amsl.com> <MWHPR11MB13117A97DE27560988FCE397DA989@MWHPR11MB1311.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAMFZu3MPmG2H-LaWYPWqDKVGo78CaTfN55xMu16Q_GHBeCTfkA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shwetha Bhandari <shwetha.bhandari@thoughtspot.com>, "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" <fbrockne@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.400.51.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/JIkxmeVkz55egGZjYgc7aK0_Lng>
Subject: Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9378 <draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-deployment-05> for your review
X-BeenThere: auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Archiving AUTH48 exchanges between the RFC Production Center, the authors, and other related parties" <auth48archive.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/>
List-Post: <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 16:19:55 -0000
Hi Frank and Shwetha, We have updated your statuses to “Approved” at https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9378. We will await approval from Daniel prior to moving this document forward in the publication process. Thank you. RFC Editor/st > On Apr 13, 2023, at 1:53 AM, Shwetha Bhandari <shwetha.bhandari@thoughtspot.com> wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > Thank for the edits, it looks good to me. I approve the changes as a co-author too. > > Thanks > Shwetha > > On Thu, 13 Apr 2023, 8:17 am Frank Brockners (fbrockne), <fbrockne@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Thanks for the changes. The document LGTM - I approve the doc as one of the authors. > > Cheers, Frank > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sarah Tarrant <starrant@amsl.com> > > Sent: Wednesday, 12 April 2023 19:38 > > To: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> > > Cc: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <fbrockne@cisco.com>; Tal Mizrahi > > <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org; > > shwetha.bhandari@thoughtspot.com; daniel.bernier@bell.ca; ippm- > > ads@ietf.org; ippm-chairs@ietf.org; tpauly@apple.com; auth48archive@rfc- > > editor.org > > Subject: Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9378 <draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-deployment- > > 05> for your review > > > > Hi Martin, > > > > We have updated your status to “Approved” at https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!Niwb5rCDDNfXQuFUzPalS0gFsNgF3_4LZ3s3LLw_xzfBsriDBl8vlmJ8zxQfiHOE-oE6EWuL-hN-hjOe6ic04jIKHQ$ > > editor.org/auth48/rfc9378. > > > > We will await approvals from the three remaining authors prior to moving this > > document forward in the publication process. > > > > Thank you. > > > > RFC Editor/st > > > > > On Apr 12, 2023, at 10:56 AM, Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > Revised Sec 3 LGTM > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 8:51 AM Sarah Tarrant <starrant@amsl.com> wrote: > > > Hi Frank and *Martin, > > > > > > [*Martin - just a reminder that we are requesting your review/approval > > > of the text added to Section 3 as highlighted in the following diff: > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9378-auth48diff.html__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!Niwb5rCDDNfXQuFUzPalS0gFsNgF3_4LZ3s3LLw_xzfBsriDBl8vlmJ8zxQfiHOE-oE6EWuL-hN-hjOe6ie42ABwRw$ .] > > > > > > Thank you for your reply and guidance. We have updated accordingly. > > > > > > Please review the files carefully as we do not make changes after publication. > > > > > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9378.txt__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!Niwb5rCDDNfXQuFUzPalS0gFsNgF3_4LZ3s3LLw_xzfBsriDBl8vlmJ8zxQfiHOE-oE6EWuL-hN-hjOe6if4NY2luQ$ > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9378.pdf__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!Niwb5rCDDNfXQuFUzPalS0gFsNgF3_4LZ3s3LLw_xzfBsriDBl8vlmJ8zxQfiHOE-oE6EWuL-hN-hjOe6icJu4AWbQ$ > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9378.html__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!Niwb5rCDDNfXQuFUzPalS0gFsNgF3_4LZ3s3LLw_xzfBsriDBl8vlmJ8zxQfiHOE-oE6EWuL-hN-hjOe6id1Xfzapg$ > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9378.xml__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!Niwb5rCDDNfXQuFUzPalS0gFsNgF3_4LZ3s3LLw_xzfBsriDBl8vlmJ8zxQfiHOE-oE6EWuL-hN-hjOe6ie_OoT5uQ$ > > > > > > The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9378-diff.html__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!Niwb5rCDDNfXQuFUzPalS0gFsNgF3_4LZ3s3LLw_xzfBsriDBl8vlmJ8zxQfiHOE-oE6EWuL-hN-hjOe6idAknQYQw$ (comprehensive diff) > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9378-auth48diff.html__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!Niwb5rCDDNfXQuFUzPalS0gFsNgF3_4LZ3s3LLw_xzfBsriDBl8vlmJ8zxQfiHOE-oE6EWuL-hN-hjOe6ie42ABwRw$ (AUTH48 > > changes only) > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9378-lastdiff.html__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!Niwb5rCDDNfXQuFUzPalS0gFsNgF3_4LZ3s3LLw_xzfBsriDBl8vlmJ8zxQfiHOE-oE6EWuL-hN-hjOe6icDlde-ow$ (last to > > > current version 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9378__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!Niwb5rCDDNfXQuFUzPalS0gFsNgF3_4LZ3s3LLw_xzfBsriDBl8vlmJ8zxQfiHOE-oE6EWuL-hN-hjOe6ieZ3UiMwA$ > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > RFC Editor/st > > > > > > > On Apr 12, 2023, at 3:44 AM, Frank Brockners (fbrockne) > > <fbrockne@cisco.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Sarah, > > > > > > > > Thanks for the updates. Please see inline.. ("..FB") > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: Sarah Tarrant <starrant@amsl.com> > > > >> Sent: Friday, 7 April 2023 17:00 > > > >> To: Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>; Frank Brockners > > > >> (fbrockne) <fbrockne@cisco.com>; martin.h.duke@gmail.com > > > >> Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org; shwetha.bhandari@thoughtspot.com; > > > >> daniel.bernier@bell.ca; ippm-ads@ietf.org; ippm-chairs@ietf.org; > > > >> tpauly@apple.com; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > > > >> Subject: Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9378 > > > >> <draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-deployment- > > > >> 05> for your review > > > >> > > > >> Hi Frank and Tal (and *Martin), > > > >> > > > >> [*Martin - please review and approve the changes highlighted at the > > > >> beginning of Section 3 in the AUTH48 diff file below.] > > > >> > > > >> Thank you for your replies and guidance. We have marked Tal as > > > >> “approved" at the AUTH48 status page (see below). We will assume > > > >> Tal’s assent to any further changes provided by the coauthors unless we > > hear otherwise at that time. > > > >> > > > >> Please review the following further questions that arose while we > > > >> implemented the requested updates. We will await your responses to > > > >> these questions prior to moving the document forward in the publication > > process. > > > >> > > > >> 1) Regarding question 5, please let us know if any further updates > > > >> were necessary regarding point b or if you would like to keep the text as is. > > > > > > > > ...FB: See below for a minor suggestion. > > > > > > > >> > > > >>>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] We had two questions related to the first two subpoints > > > >>>>> in the list in Section 4: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> a) To make the two nested points parallel, should the second > > > >>>>> point be rewritten > > > >>>>> ("Operations/Troubleshooting: Understand" updated to "With > > > >>>>> regard to operations and troubleshooting, understand...")? Or > > > >>>>> should the first nested point have a similar introduction to the second? > > > >>>>> Please let us know if our suggestion below is a viable solution > > > >>>>> or if there is another way to rephrase. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> b) Also, please clarify the two instances of "Understand". Who > > > >>>>> is understanding the different paths? Or is there another way > > > >>>>> to clarify > > > >> "Understand"? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Original: > > > >>>>> Potential uses of IOAM per-hop tracing include: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> - Understand the different paths different packets traverse > > > >>>>> between an IOAM encapsulating and an IOAM decapsulating node in > > > >>>>> a network that uses load balancing such as Equal Cost Multi- > > > >>>>> Path (ECMP). This information could be used to tune the > > > >>>>> algorithm for ECMP for optimized network resource usage. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> - Operations/Troubleshooting: Understand which path a particular > > > >>>>> packet or set of packets take as well as what amount of jitter > > > >>>>> and delay different IOAM nodes in the path contribute to the > > > >>>>> overall delay and jitter between the IOAM encapsulating node > > > >>>>> and the IOAM decapsulating node. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Perhaps: > > > >>>>> Potential uses of IOAM per-hop tracing include: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> - Understanding the different paths different packets traverse > > > >>>>> between an IOAM encapsulating and an IOAM decapsulating node in > > > >>>>> a network that uses load-balancing such as Equal Cost Multi- > > > >>>>> Path (ECMP). This information could be used to tune the > > > >>>>> algorithm for ECMP for optimized network resource usage. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> - With regard to operations and troubleshooting, understanding > > which > > > >>>>> path a particular packet or set of packets take as well as what > > > >>>>> amount of jitter and delay different IOAM nodes in the path > > > >>>>> contribute to the overall delay and jitter between the IOAM > > > >>>>> encapsulating node and the IOAM decapsulating node. > > > >>>>> --> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> ...FB: I like your proposal. > > > > > > > > ...FB: IMHO it would be good to mention "IOAM encapsulating node" in the > > sentence below, rather than just "IOAM encapsulating". But this is just my > > "feeling" as a non-native English speaker. > > > > > > > > CURRENT: > > > > * Understanding the different paths that different packets > > > > traverse between an IOAM encapsulating and an IOAM > > > > decapsulating node in a network that uses load balancing, such > > > > as Equal Cost Multi-Path (ECMP). This information could be > > > > used to tune the algorithm for ECMP for optimized network > > > > resource usage. > > > > > > > > NEW: > > > > * Understanding the different paths that different packets > > > > traverse between an IOAM encapsulating node and an IOAM > > > > decapsulating node in a network that uses load balancing, such > > > > as Equal Cost Multi-Path (ECMP). This information could be > > > > used to tune the algorithm for ECMP for optimized network > > > > resource usage. > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> 2) Regarding question 6, where Frank wrote: > > > >> > > > >>>> NEW: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> * Generic data, that is format-free information, where the syntax and > > > >>>> semantics of the information are defined by the operator in a specific > > > >>>> deployment. > > > >> > > > >> please note that we further updated to use “Generic data, which is > > > >> format-free information, where…” as we assume the intention is to > > > >> give further information on the generic data (not to contrast it with generic > > data that is not format-free). > > > >> Please let us know any objections. > > > > > > > > ...FB: ACK. The change to "which" makes sense. > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> 3) When making terminology updates, we wanted to clarify the following: > > > >> > > > >> a) Please confirm that the “Perhaps” text below is an *example* of > > > >> a desired update (similar text occurs elsewhere). > > > >> > > > >> Original: > > > >> The incremental IOAM-Trace-Option-Type eliminates the need for the > > > >> IOAM transit nodes to read the full array in the Trace-Option-Type > > > >> and allows packets to grow to the size of the MTU of the IOAM domain. > > > >> > > > >> Current: > > > >> The incremental IOAM Trace > > > >> Option-Type eliminates the need for the IOAM transit nodes to read > > > >> the full array in the Trace Option-Type and allows packets to grow > > > >> to the size of the MTU of the IOAM-Domain. > > > >> > > > >> Perhaps: > > > >> The IOAM Incremental Trace > > > >> Option-Type eliminates the need for the IOAM transit nodes to read > > > >> the full array in the Trace Option-Type and allows packets to grow > > > >> to the size of the MTU of the IOAM-Domain. > > > > > > > > ...FB: Agreed. Your suggestion is more accurate. > > > > > > > >> > > > >> b) We were uncertain about the updates to “Active flag” per the > > > >> author > > > >> response: > > > >> > > > >>> Original: > > > >>> IOAM active mode flag > > > >>> Active flag > > > >>> > > > >>> Perhaps: > > > >>> Active flag (per RFC 9322) > > > >> > > > >> ...FB: Agreed. > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >>> See also IOAM Active Mode. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Should the title of Section 7.6 be updated as follows? > > > >> > > > >> Current: > > > >> IOAM Active Mode > > > >> > > > >> Perhaps: > > > >> Active Flag > > > > > > > > ...FB: Agreed. Keeping things consistent with RFC 9322 is appreciated. > > > > > > > > ...FB: In order to keep things consistent in the document, IMHO it > > > > would make sense to also change4 > > > > > > > > CURRENT: > > > > > > > > 7.5. IOAM Loopback > > > > > > > > NEW: > > > > > > > > 7.5. Loopback flag > > > > > > > >> > > > >> See also: > > > >> > > > >> Current: > > > >> Example use cases for IOAM Active Mode include: > > > >> > > > >> Perhaps: > > > >> Example use cases for the Active flag include: > > > > > > > > ...FB: Agreed. > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> We have updated the document with all the other changes as > > > >> requested. Please review these updates carefully as we do not make > > > >> changes once the document is published as an RFC. We will > > > >> approvals from each coauthor prior to moving the document forward in the > > publication process. > > > > > > > > > > > > ...FB: When reading through the document, I found another minor > > inconsistency in language in section 10 ("Direct Exporting mode" vs. "Direct > > Exporting"). IMHO it would be good to avoid "mode" here as well and just refer > > to "Direct Exporting" > > > > > > > > CURRENT: > > > > > > > > IOAM data can be subject to eavesdropping. Although the > > > > confidentiality of the user data is not at risk in this context, the > > > > IOAM data elements can be used for network reconnaissance, allowing > > > > attackers to collect information about network paths, performance, > > > > queue states, buffer occupancy, and other information. Recon is an > > > > improbable security threat in an IOAM deployment that is within a > > > > confined physical domain. However, in deployments that are not > > > > confined to a single LAN but span multiple interconnected sites (for > > > > example, using an overlay network), the inter-site links are expected > > > > to be secured (e.g., by IPsec) in order to avoid external > > > > eavesdropping and introduction of malicious or false data. Another > > > > possible mitigation approach is to use the "Direct Exporting" mode > > > > [RFC9326]. In this case, the IOAM-related trace information would > > > > not be available in the customer data packets but would trigger the > > > > exporting of (secured) packet-related IOAM information at every node. > > > > IOAM data export and securing IOAM data export is outside the scope > > > > of this document. > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > Notably, IOAM is expected to be deployed in limited network domains > > > > [RFC8799], thus, confining the potential attack vectors within the > > > > limited domain. Indeed, in order to limit the scope of threats > > > > within the current network domain, the network operator is expected > > > > to enforce policies that prevent IOAM traffic from leaking outside > > > > the IOAM-Domain and prevent an attacker from introducing malicious or > > > > false IOAM data to be processed and used within the IOAM-Domain. > > > > IOAM data leakage could lead to privacy issues. Consider an IOAM > > > > encapsulating node that is a home gateway in an operator's network. > > > > A home gateway is often identified with an individual. Revealing > > > > IOAM data, such as "IOAM node identifier" or geolocation information > > > > outside of the limited domain, could be harmful for that user. Note > > > > that the Direct Exporting mode [RFC9326] can mitigate the potential > > > > threat of IOAM data leaking through data packets. > > > > > > > > NEW: > > > > IOAM data can be subject to eavesdropping. Although the > > > > confidentiality of the user data is not at risk in this context, the > > > > IOAM data elements can be used for network reconnaissance, allowing > > > > attackers to collect information about network paths, performance, > > > > queue states, buffer occupancy, and other information. Recon is an > > > > improbable security threat in an IOAM deployment that is within a > > > > confined physical domain. However, in deployments that are not > > > > confined to a single LAN but span multiple interconnected sites (for > > > > example, using an overlay network), the inter-site links are expected > > > > to be secured (e.g., by IPsec) in order to avoid external > > > > eavesdropping and introduction of malicious or false data. Another > > > > possible mitigation approach is to use "Direct Exporting" > > > > [RFC9326]. In this case, the IOAM-related trace information would > > > > not be available in the customer data packets but would trigger the > > > > exporting of (secured) packet-related IOAM information at every node. > > > > IOAM data export and securing IOAM data export is outside the scope > > > > of this document. > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > Notably, IOAM is expected to be deployed in limited network domains > > > > [RFC8799], thus, confining the potential attack vectors within the > > > > limited domain. Indeed, in order to limit the scope of threats > > > > within the current network domain, the network operator is expected > > > > to enforce policies that prevent IOAM traffic from leaking outside > > > > the IOAM-Domain and prevent an attacker from introducing malicious or > > > > false IOAM data to be processed and used within the IOAM-Domain. > > > > IOAM data leakage could lead to privacy issues. Consider an IOAM > > > > encapsulating node that is a home gateway in an operator's network. > > > > A home gateway is often identified with an individual. Revealing > > > > IOAM data, such as "IOAM node identifier" or geolocation information > > > > outside of the limited domain, could be harmful for that user. Note > > > > that Direct Exporting [RFC9326] can mitigate the potential > > > > threat of IOAM data leaking through data packets. > > > > > > > > Cheers, Frank > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> The files have been posted here (please refresh): > > > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9378.txt__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!Niwb5rCDDNfXQuFUzPalS0gFsNgF3_4LZ3s3LLw_xzfBsriDBl8vlmJ8zxQfiHOE-oE6EWuL-hN-hjOe6if4NY2luQ$ > > > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9378.pdf__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!Niwb5rCDDNfXQuFUzPalS0gFsNgF3_4LZ3s3LLw_xzfBsriDBl8vlmJ8zxQfiHOE-oE6EWuL-hN-hjOe6icJu4AWbQ$ > > > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9378.html__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!Niwb5rCDDNfXQuFUzPalS0gFsNgF3_4LZ3s3LLw_xzfBsriDBl8vlmJ8zxQfiHOE-oE6EWuL-hN-hjOe6id1Xfzapg$ > > > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9378.xml__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!Niwb5rCDDNfXQuFUzPalS0gFsNgF3_4LZ3s3LLw_xzfBsriDBl8vlmJ8zxQfiHOE-oE6EWuL-hN-hjOe6ie_OoT5uQ$ > > > >> > > > >> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): > > > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9378-diff.html__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!Niwb5rCDDNfXQuFUzPalS0gFsNgF3_4LZ3s3LLw_xzfBsriDBl8vlmJ8zxQfiHOE-oE6EWuL-hN-hjOe6idAknQYQw$ (comprehensive > > > >> diff) https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9378-rfcdiff.html__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!Niwb5rCDDNfXQuFUzPalS0gFsNgF3_4LZ3s3LLw_xzfBsriDBl8vlmJ8zxQfiHOE-oE6EWuL-hN-hjOe6ic-AN-pqw$ > > > >> (comprehensive > > > >> rfcdiff) > > > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9378-auth48diff.html__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!Niwb5rCDDNfXQuFUzPalS0gFsNgF3_4LZ3s3LLw_xzfBsriDBl8vlmJ8zxQfiHOE-oE6EWuL-hN-hjOe6ie42ABwRw$ (AUTH48 > > > >> changes only) > > > >> > > > >> The AUTH48 status page is viewable at: > > > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9378__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!Niwb5rCDDNfXQuFUzPalS0gFsNgF3_4LZ3s3LLw_xzfBsriDBl8vlmJ8zxQfiHOE-oE6EWuL-hN-hjOe6ieZ3UiMwA$ > > > >> > > > >> Thank you. > > > >> > > > >> RFC Editor/st > > > >>> On Apr 5, 2023, at 9:02 AM, Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> Dear RFC Editorial Team, > > > >>> > > > >>> I agree with Frank's comments. > > > >>> I approve. > > > >>> > > > >>> Thanks, > > > >>> Tal. > > > >>> > > > >>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 9:26 PM Frank Brockners (fbrockne) > > > >>> <fbrockne@cisco.com> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Dear Sarah, RFC-Editor team, > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>>>> From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> > > > >>>>> Sent: Monday, 27 March 2023 23:14 > > > >>>>> To: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <fbrockne@cisco.com>; > > > >>>>> shwetha.bhandari@thoughtspot.com; daniel.bernier@bell.ca; > > > >>>>> tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com > > > >>>>> Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org; ippm-ads@ietf.org; > > > >>>>> ippm-chairs@ietf.org; tpauly@apple.com; martin.h.duke@gmail.com; > > > >>>>> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > > > >>>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9378 > > > >>>>> <draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-deployment-05> > > > >>>>> 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 to more similarly match related recently > > published RFCs. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Original: > > > >>>>> In-situ OAM Deployment > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Current: > > > >>>>> In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) > > > >>>>> Deployment > > > >>>>> --> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> ...FB: ACK. > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] We suggest updating the following text for the ease of > > > >>>>> the reader. Please let us know any objections. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Original: > > > >>>>> IOAM mechanisms can be > > > >>>>> leveraged where mechanisms using e.g., ICMP do not apply or do > > > >>>>> not offer the desired results, such as proving that a certain > > > >>>>> traffic flow takes a pre-defined path, SLA verification for the > > > >>>>> live data traffic, detailed statistics on traffic distribution > > > >>>>> paths in networks that distribute traffic across multiple > > > >>>>> paths, or scenarios in which probe traffic is potentially > > > >>>>> handled differently from regular data traffic by the network devices. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Perhaps: > > > >>>>> IOAM mechanisms can be > > > >>>>> leveraged where mechanisms using, e.g., ICMP do not apply or do > > > >>>>> not offer the desired results. These results could include: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> * proving that a certain traffic flow takes a predefined > > > >>>>> path, > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> * verifying the Service Level Agreement (SLA) for the live data > > > >>>>> traffic, > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> * providing detailed statistics on traffic distribution paths in > > > >>>>> networks that distribute traffic across multiple paths, > > > >>>>> or > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> * providing scenarios in which probe traffic is potentially > > > >>>>> handled differently from regular data traffic by the network > > > >>>>> devices. > > > >>>>> --> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> ...FB: Making this long winded sentence more readable is very > > > >>>> worthwhile. In > > > >> your proposal, the term "result" could be misunderstood though. > > > >>>> How about the following: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> NEW: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> IOAM mechanisms can be leveraged in situations where mechanisms > > > >>>> using, e.g., ICMP does not apply or does not offer the desired > > > >>>> results. These situations could include: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> * proving that a certain traffic flow takes a predefined > > > >>>> path, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> * verifying the Service Level Agreement (SLA) for the live data > > > >>>> traffic, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> * providing detailed statistics on traffic distribution paths in > > > >>>> networks that distribute traffic across multiple paths, or > > > >>>> > > > >>>> * providing scenarios in which probe traffic is potentially > > > >>>> handled differently from regular data traffic by the network > > > >>>> devices. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> 3) <!--[rfced] We note a lot of similarities in the text of > > > >>>>> Section > > > >>>>> 3 with the text that appears in Section 4.2 of RFC 9197. > > > >>>>> However, there is no citation to that document in Section 3. > > > >>>>> Please review and let us know if a citation should be added, any > > > >>>>> text should be updated, or if the reader should simply be > > > >>>>> pointed to Section 4.2 of RFC 9197 for certain info.--> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> ...FB: Good point. Given that (a) the deployment document is a > > > >>>> bit more > > > >> recent than RFC 9197, (b) a partial repeat of definitions helps the > > > >> reader and (c) the IESG had comments and text suggestions on the > > > >> section which led to revised text, IMHO it would be better to keep the > > section in place rather than remove it. > > > >> That said, what would make sense is to add a paragraph up front > > > >> which states the reference to RFC 9197. E.g. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> OLD: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> 3. IOAM Deployment: Domains And Nodes > > > >>>> > > > >>>> IOAM is focused on "limited domains" as defined in [RFC8799]. > > > >>>> IOAM is not targeted for a deployment on the global Internet. ... > > > >>>> > > > >>>> NEW: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> 3. IOAM Deployment: Domains And Nodes > > > >>>> > > > >>>> RFC 9197 defines the scope of IOAM as well as the different > > > >>>> types of IOAM nodes. For improved readability, this section > > > >>>> provides a brief overview of where IOAM applies, along with > > > >>>> explaining the main roles of nodes that employ IOAM. > > > >>>> Please refer to RFC 9197 for further details. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> IOAM is focused on "limited domains" as defined in [RFC8799]. > > > >>>> IOAM is not targeted for a deployment on the global Internet. ... > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] Does this instance of "/" indicate "and" or "or"? > > > >>>>> Please let us know how we may update for clarity. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Original: > > > >>>>> For example, an IOAM-domain can include an enterprise campus > > > >>>>> using physical connections between devices or an overlay > > > >>>>> network using virtual connections / tunnels for connectivity between > > said devices. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Perhaps: > > > >>>>> a) > > > >>>>> For example, an IOAM-Domain can include an enterprise campus > > > >>>>> using physical connections between devices or an overlay > > > >>>>> network using virtual connections and tunnels for connectivity between > > said devices. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> b) > > > >>>>> For example, an IOAM-Domain can include an enterprise campus > > > >>>>> using physical connections between devices or an overlay > > > >>>>> network using virtual connections or tunnels for connectivity between > > said devices. > > > >>>>> --> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> ...FB: It is option b). I.e., > > > >>>> > > > >>>> NEW: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> For example, an IOAM-Domain can include an enterprise campus using > > > >>>> physical connections between devices or an overlay network using > > > >>>> virtual connections or tunnels for connectivity between said devices. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] We had two questions related to the first two subpoints > > > >>>>> in the list in Section 4: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> a) To make the two nested points parallel, should the second > > > >>>>> point be rewritten > > > >>>>> ("Operations/Troubleshooting: Understand" updated to "With > > > >>>>> regard to operations and troubleshooting, understand...")? Or > > > >>>>> should the first nested point have a similar introduction to the second? > > > >>>>> Please let us know if our suggestion below is a viable solution > > > >>>>> or if there is another way to rephrase. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> b) Also, please clarify the two instances of "Understand". Who > > > >>>>> is understanding the different paths? Or is there another way > > > >>>>> to clarify > > > >> "Understand"? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Original: > > > >>>>> Potential uses of IOAM per-hop tracing include: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> - Understand the different paths different packets traverse > > > >>>>> between an IOAM encapsulating and an IOAM decapsulating node > > in > > > >>>>> a network that uses load balancing such as Equal Cost Multi- > > > >>>>> Path (ECMP). This information could be used to tune the > > > >>>>> algorithm for ECMP for optimized network resource usage. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> - Operations/Troubleshooting: Understand which path a particular > > > >>>>> packet or set of packets take as well as what amount of jitter > > > >>>>> and delay different IOAM nodes in the path contribute to the > > > >>>>> overall delay and jitter between the IOAM encapsulating node > > > >>>>> and the IOAM decapsulating node. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Perhaps: > > > >>>>> Potential uses of IOAM per-hop tracing include: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> - Understanding the different paths different packets traverse > > > >>>>> between an IOAM encapsulating and an IOAM decapsulating node > > in > > > >>>>> a network that uses load-balancing such as Equal Cost Multi- > > > >>>>> Path (ECMP). This information could be used to tune the > > > >>>>> algorithm for ECMP for optimized network resource usage. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> - With regard to operations and troubleshooting, understanding > > which > > > >>>>> path a particular packet or set of packets take as well as what > > > >>>>> amount of jitter and delay different IOAM nodes in the path > > > >>>>> contribute to the overall delay and jitter between the IOAM > > > >>>>> encapsulating node and the IOAM decapsulating node. > > > >>>>> --> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> ...FB: I like your proposal. > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] To make this list parallel, may we update "Generic data: > > > >>>>> Format-free information where..." to "Generic data, such as > > > >>>>> format-free information, where..."? Or would you like the list to > > > >>>>> be more of a definition list where each point has a term and then > > > >>>>> a definition list? Please let us know how we may update. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Original: > > > >>>>> * Generic data: Format-free information where syntax and semantic of > > > >>>>> the information is defined by the operator in a specific > > > >>>>> deployment. For a specific IOAM-Namespace, all IOAM nodes should > > > >>>>> interpret the generic data the same way. Examples for generic > > > >>>>> IOAM data include geolocation information (location of the node at > > > >>>>> the time the packet was processed), buffer queue fill level or > > > >>>>> cache fill level at the time the packet was processed, or even a > > > >>>>> battery charge level. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Perhaps: > > > >>>>> * Generic data, such as format-free information, where the syntax and > > > >>>>> semantics of the information are defined by the operator in a specific > > > >>>>> deployment. For a specific IOAM-Namespace, all IOAM nodes should > > > >>>>> interpret the generic data the same way. Examples for generic > > > >>>>> IOAM data include geolocation information (location of the node at > > > >>>>> the time the packet was processed), bufferqueue fill level or > > > >>>>> cache fill level at the time the packet was processed, or even a > > > >>>>> battery charge level. > > > >>>>> --> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> ...FB: Generic data _is_ format-free in case of IOAM. "such as" > > > >>>> could be read > > > >> as "format-free" information is only an example. How about: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> NEW: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> * Generic data, that is format-free information, where the syntax and > > > >>>> semantics of the information are defined by the operator in a specific > > > >>>> deployment. For a specific IOAM-Namespace, all IOAM nodes should > > > >>>> interpret the generic data the same way. Examples for generic > > > >>>> IOAM data include geolocation information (location of the node at > > > >>>> the time the packet was processed), bufferqueue fill level or > > > >>>> cache fill level at the time the packet was processed, or even a > > > >>>> battery charge level. > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> 7) <!--[rfced] The following text seems to be taken from RFC 9197. May > > > >>>>> we update the capping scheme to match? Note that we will update > > > >>>>> s/consist/consists regardless (which seems to be an error in > > > >>>>> RFC 9197). > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> RFC 9197: > > > >>>>> The IOAM Proof of Transit Option-Type consist of a fixed-size > > > >>>>> "IOAM Proof of Transit Option header" and "IOAM Proof of Transit > > > >>>>> Option data > > > >>>>> fields": > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> This document: > > > >>>>> The IOAM Proof of Transit Option-Type consist of a fixed size > > > >>>>> "IOAM proof of transit option header" and "IOAM proof of transit > > > >>>>> option data > > > >> fields". > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Perhaps: > > > >>>>> The IOAM Proof of Transit Option-Type consists of a fixed-size > > > >>>>> "IOAM Proof of Transit Option header" and "IOAM Proof of Transit > > > >>>>> Option data > > > >> fields." > > > >>>>> --> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> ...FB: Your suggestion makes sense. > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> 8) <!--[rfced] We had a question about the citation in this text: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Original: > > > >>>>> ... IOAM loopback mode. For a definition of IOAM Namespaces and > > > >>>>> IOAM layering, please refer to [RFC9197]. IOAM loopback mode is > > > >>>>> defined in [RFC9322]. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> We note that RFC 9322 never actually uses the term "mode". > > > >>>>> Please review and let us know if any updates to the following text are > > necessary. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> ...FB: Rather than talk about "IOAM loopback mode" we should > > > >>>> simply say > > > >> "IOAM loopback". > > > >>>> How about... > > > >>>> > > > >>>> NEW: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> 7. IOAM Deployment Considerations > > > >>>> > > > >>>> This section describes several concepts of IOAM, and provides > > > >>>> considerations that need to be taken to account when implementing > > > >>>> IOAM in a network domain. This includes concepts like IOAM > > > >>>> Namespaces, IOAM Layering, traffic-sets that IOAM is applied to > > > >>>> and IOAM Loopback. For a definition of IOAM Namespaces and IOAM > > > >>>> layering, please refer to [RFC9197]. IOAM Loopback is defined > > > >>>> in [RFC9322]. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> --> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> 9) <!-- [rfced] We had the following queries related to terminology use > > > >>>>> throughout the document: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> a) The following terminology appears to be used inconsistently. > > > >>>>> May we update as suggested below for consistency with past RFCs? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Original: > > > >>>>> Direct export > > > >>>>> Direct Export > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Perhaps: > > > >>>>> Direct Export (based on RFC 9326) > > > >>>> > > > >>>> ...FB: Agreed. > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Original: > > > >>>>> Incremental Trace-Option-Type > > > >>>>> incremental Trace Option-Type > > > >>>>> Incremental Trace-Option > > > >>>>> Incremental Trace Option-Type > > > >>>>> "Incremental" Trace-Option-Type > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Perhaps: > > > >>>>> Incremental Trace Option-Type (based on RFC 9197) > > > >>>> > > > >>>> ...FB: Agreed. > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Original: > > > >>>>> IOAM Layering > > > >>>>> IOAM layering > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Perhaps: > > > >>>>> IOAM Layering (based on RFC 9197) > > > >>>> > > > >>>> ...FB: Agreed. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Original: > > > >>>>> IOAM Loopback > > > >>>>> IOAM loopback > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Perhaps: > > > >>>>> ? - RFC 9322 uses IOAM Loopback only once, then we see "IOAM > > > >>>>> looped- > > > >> back" > > > >>>> > > > >>>> ...FB: See above. Let's standardize on "IOAM Loopback". > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Original: > > > >>>>> IOAM active mode flag > > > >>>>> Active flag > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Perhaps: > > > >>>>> Active flag (per RFC 9322) > > > >>>> > > > >>>> ...FB: Agreed. > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> See also IOAM Active Mode. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Original: > > > >>>>> loopback flag > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Perhaps: > > > >>>>> Loopback flag (per RFC 9322) > > > >>>> > > > >>>> ...FB: Agreed. > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Original: > > > >>>>> IOAM-Namespace > > > >>>>> IOAM Namespace > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Perhaps: > > > >>>>> IOAM-Namespace (based on RFCs 9197 and 9322) > > > >>>> > > > >>>> ...FB: Agreed. > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Original: > > > >>>>> IOAM-Option-Type > > > >>>>> IOAM Option-Type > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Perhaps: > > > >>>>> IOAM Option-Type (based on RFC 9197 and 9326) > > > >>>> > > > >>>> ...FB: Agreed. > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Original: > > > >>>>> IOAM-Trace-Option-Type > > > >>>>> IOAM Trace Option Type > > > >>>>> IOAM Trace Option-Type > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Perhaps: > > > >>>>> IOAM Trace Option-Type (based on RFC 9197) > > > >>>> > > > >>>> ...FB: Agreed. > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Original: > > > >>>>> Pre-allocated Trace-Option-Type > > > >>>>> pre-allocated Option-Type > > > >>>>> Pre-allocated Trace-Option > > > >>>>> "Pre-allocated" Trace-Option-Type > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Perhaps: > > > >>>>> Pre-allocated Trace Option-Type (based on RFC 9197) > > > >>>> > > > >>>> ...FB: Agreed. > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Original: > > > >>>>> Trace-Option-Type > > > >>>>> Trace Option-Type > > > >>>>> trace Option-Type > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Perhaps: > > > >>>>> Trace Option-Type (based on RFC 9197) > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Relating to the two entries above, see also: > > > >>>>> The Option-Types of incremental tracing and pre-allocated > > > >>>>> tracing are defined in [RFC9197]. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> ...FB: Agreed. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> b) We have updated "Edge to Edge" and "Edge-to-edge" to "Edge-to- > > Edge" > > > >>>>> per RFC 9197. May we update all subsequent instances to "E2E" > > > >>>>> when not in quotes? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> ...FB: Makes sense. > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> c) FYI, we have updated to use the following forms (see > > > >>>>> capitalization/hyphenation/etc.) of various terms for > > > >>>>> consistency with recent RFCs on the topic. Please let us know of any > > objections. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Hop-by-Hop (per RFC 9326) > > > >>>>> IOAM-Domain (per feedback on RFC-to-be 9359) Proof of Transit > > > >>>>> (per feedback on RFC-to-be 9359) IOAM encapsulating node, IOAM > > > >>>>> decapsulating node, IOAM transit node > > > >>>>> --> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> ...FB: ACK. > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> 10) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the > > > >>>>> online Style Guide > > > >>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/*inclusive_language__;Iw!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!Niwb5rCDDNfXQuFUzPalS0gFsNgF3_4LZ3s3LLw_xzfBsriDBl8vlmJ8zxQfiHOE-oE6EWuL-hN-hjOe6ie1C5gmvA$ > > > > >>>>> 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. > > > >>>>> --> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> ...FB: Thanks for the note. I'm also not aware of any challenges > > > >>>> wrt/ non- > > > >> inclusive language with the current text. > > > >>>> I don't see a need for further changes. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> THANKS A LOT for your suggestions, review and help. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Cheers, Frank > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Thank you. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> RFC Editor/st/mf > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> *****IMPORTANT***** > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Updated 2023/03/27 > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!Niwb5rCDDNfXQuFUzPalS0gFsNgF3_4LZ3s3LLw_xzfBsriDBl8vlmJ8zxQfiHOE-oE6EWuL-hN-hjOe6idBXRC0kQ$ ). > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!Niwb5rCDDNfXQuFUzPalS0gFsNgF3_4LZ3s3LLw_xzfBsriDBl8vlmJ8zxQfiHOE-oE6EWuL-hN-hjOe6icRrn8x_A$ ). > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> * 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!Niwb5rCDDNfXQuFUzPalS0gFsNgF3_4LZ3s3LLw_xzfBsriDBl8vlmJ8zxQfiHOE-oE6EWuL-hN-hjOe6id2N5D7og$ >. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> * 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 > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> * rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org (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). > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list > > > >>>>> to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion > > > >>>>> list: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> * More info: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!Niwb5rCDDNfXQuFUzPalS0gFsNgF3_4LZ3s3LLw_xzfBsriDBl8vlmJ8zxQfiHOE-oE6EWuL-hN-hjOe6ie64C1PHQ$ > > > >>>>> 4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> * The archive itself: > > > >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!Niwb5rCDDNfXQuFUzPalS0gFsNgF3_4LZ3s3LLw_xzfBsriDBl8vlmJ8zxQfiHOE-oE6EWuL-hN-hjOe6ic0QJDdXg$ > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> * 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, > > > >>>>> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9378.xml__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!Niwb5rCDDNfXQuFUzPalS0gFsNgF3_4LZ3s3LLw_xzfBsriDBl8vlmJ8zxQfiHOE-oE6EWuL-hN-hjOe6ie_OoT5uQ$ > > > >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9378.html__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!Niwb5rCDDNfXQuFUzPalS0gFsNgF3_4LZ3s3LLw_xzfBsriDBl8vlmJ8zxQfiHOE-oE6EWuL-hN-hjOe6id1Xfzapg$ > > > >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9378.pdf__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!Niwb5rCDDNfXQuFUzPalS0gFsNgF3_4LZ3s3LLw_xzfBsriDBl8vlmJ8zxQfiHOE-oE6EWuL-hN-hjOe6icJu4AWbQ$ > > > >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9378.txt__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!Niwb5rCDDNfXQuFUzPalS0gFsNgF3_4LZ3s3LLw_xzfBsriDBl8vlmJ8zxQfiHOE-oE6EWuL-hN-hjOe6if4NY2luQ$ > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Diff file of the text: > > > >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9378-diff.html__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!Niwb5rCDDNfXQuFUzPalS0gFsNgF3_4LZ3s3LLw_xzfBsriDBl8vlmJ8zxQfiHOE-oE6EWuL-hN-hjOe6idAknQYQw$ > > > >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9378-rfcdiff.html__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!Niwb5rCDDNfXQuFUzPalS0gFsNgF3_4LZ3s3LLw_xzfBsriDBl8vlmJ8zxQfiHOE-oE6EWuL-hN-hjOe6ic-AN-pqw$ (side > > > >>>>> by > > > >>>>> side) > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Diff of the XML: > > > >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9378-xmldiff1.html__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!Niwb5rCDDNfXQuFUzPalS0gFsNgF3_4LZ3s3LLw_xzfBsriDBl8vlmJ8zxQfiHOE-oE6EWuL-hN-hjOe6icRlFRZQw$ > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your > > > >>>>> own diff files of the XML. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input: > > > >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9378.original.v2v3.xml__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!Niwb5rCDDNfXQuFUzPalS0gFsNgF3_4LZ3s3LLw_xzfBsriDBl8vlmJ8zxQfiHOE-oE6EWuL-hN-hjOe6ieJ7525GQ$ > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format > > > >>>>> updates > > > >>>>> only: > > > >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9378.form.xml__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!Niwb5rCDDNfXQuFUzPalS0gFsNgF3_4LZ3s3LLw_xzfBsriDBl8vlmJ8zxQfiHOE-oE6EWuL-hN-hjOe6idnP0nFVA$ > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Tracking progress > > > >>>>> ----------------- > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > > > >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9378__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!Niwb5rCDDNfXQuFUzPalS0gFsNgF3_4LZ3s3LLw_xzfBsriDBl8vlmJ8zxQfiHOE-oE6EWuL-hN-hjOe6ieZ3UiMwA$ > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Thank you for your cooperation, > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> RFC Editor > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> -------------------------------------- > > > >>>>> RFC9378 (draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-deployment-05) > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Title : In-situ OAM Deployment > > > >>>>> Author(s) : F. Brockners, Ed., S. Bhandari, Ed., D. Bernier, T. Mizrahi, > > Ed. > > > >>>>> WG Chair(s) : Marcus Ihlar, Tommy Pauly > > > >>>>> Area Director(s) : Martin Duke, Zaheduzzaman Sarker > > > > > > > > > > >
- [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9378 <draft-ietf-ippm-… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9378 <draft-ietf-i… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9378 <draft-ietf-i… Sarah Tarrant
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9378 <draft-ietf-i… Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9378 <draft-ietf-i… Tal Mizrahi
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9378 <draft-i… Sarah Tarrant
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9378 <draft-i… Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9378 <draft-i… Sarah Tarrant
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9378 <draft-i… Martin Duke
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9378 <draft-i… Sarah Tarrant
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9378 <draft-i… Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9378 <draft-i… Shwetha Bhandari
- Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9378 <draft-i… Sarah Tarrant
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9378 <draft-ietf-i… Sarah Tarrant
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9378 <draft-ietf-i… Bernier, Daniel
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9378 <draft-ietf-i… Sarah Tarrant