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

[Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]>]

Hi Greg and Xiao Min,

Thank you for sending along these updates.  We have incorporated them into our files and reposted (below).  Please review these changes carefully as we do not make changes to the document once it has been published as an RFC.

Note also that we have received a bounce message for [e-mail] (which is the same address we see in the datatracker for Lei Bo).  If anyone has a contact information update, we would appreciate it.

  The files have been posted here (please refresh):
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9359.txt
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9359.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9359.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9359.xml
 
  The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh):
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9359-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9359-rfcdiff.html (comprehensive rfcdiff)
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9359-auth48diff.html (all AUTH48 changes)
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9359-lastdiff.html (last version to this)
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9359-lastrfcdiff.html (last version to this rfcdiff)

 The AUTH48 status page for this document is viewable here:
    http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9359

Thank you.

RFC Editor/mf


> On Mar 20, 2023, at 2:43 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> Hi Megan,
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks a lot.
> 
> To make this document consistent with RFC 9197, below two changes are suggested.
> 
> s/Proof-of-Transit/Proof of Transit/g
> 
> s/Pre-Allocated/Pre-allocated/g
> 
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Xiao Min
> 
> Original
> From: MeganFerguson <[e-mail]>
> To: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>;肖敏10093570;
> Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;Martin Duke <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> Date: 2023年03月18日 11:18
> Subject: Re: [ADs] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9359 <draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-10> for your review
> Greg and Xiao Min (and *ADs),
> 
> [*ADs - please note that we will await your response to question 9 in our previous email prior to moving this document forward in the publication process.]
> 
> Thank you for your replies and guidance.  We have updated the document as requested.  Please these updates 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/rfc9359.txt
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9359.pdf
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9359.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9359.xml
>   
>   The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh):
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9359-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9359-rfcdiff.html (comprehensive rfcdiff)
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9359-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes only)
> 
>   The AUTH48 status page is viewable at:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9359
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> RFC Editor/mf
> 
> 
> > On Mar 9, 2023, at 8:43 PM, Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >  
> > Hi Xiao Min,
> > thank you for your kind consideration of my answers.
> >  
> > Dear RFC Editor,
> > it seems like Xiao Min and I have agreed on our responses to your questions. Please advise of any further steps we need to make.
> >  
> > Regards,
> > Greg
> >  
> > On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 5:31 PM <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Thank you for the reply, Greg.
> >  
> > Please see inline...
> >  
> > Original
> > From: GregMirsky <[e-mail]> 
> > To: [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]>;肖敏10093570;
> > Date: 2023年03月10日 06:21
> > Subject: Re: [ADs] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9359 <draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-10> for your review
> > Dear RFC Editor,
> > thank you for your thoughtful questions. Please find my answers in-line below under the GIM>> tag. I have two alternative proposals. Please let me know if you have any questions.
> >  
> > Regards,
> > Greg
> >  
> > On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 7:13 PM <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Dear RFC Editor,
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > Many thanks for your effort.
> >  
> > Please see inline...
> >  
> > Original
> > From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]> 
> > To: 肖敏10093570;[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03月07日 11:50
> > Subject: Re: [ADs] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9359 <draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-10> for your review
> > 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
> > [XM]>>> This change looks good to me.
> >  
> > GIM>> I agree with the proposed update of the title.  
> >  
> >  
> > b) Please review the short title of the document as "Ping" is only mentioned   
> > briefly in this document.
> >  
> > Original:
> > Ping Enabled IOAM Capabilities   
> > [XM]>>> "Ping" is used widely, so I lean to remain it as is.
> >  
> > GIM>> "Ping" is synonymous with Echo Request/Reply and traditionally used as a shorter version. I think that is quite fitting for the short title.
> > --> 
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the
> > title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search.   
> > [XM]>>> IPv6, MPLS, SFC, BIER.
> >  
> > GIM>> I agree with Xiao Min's proposal.  
> > --> 
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > 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.
> > [XM]>>> No objection.
> >  
> > GIM>> I agree with the proposed update; thank you.  
> > -->  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > 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].
> > [XM]>>> How about:
> >  
> >    The SoP (Size of POT) field has two bits, which means the size of
> >    "PktID" and "Cumulative" data, the two data are specified in
> >    Section 4.5 of [RFC9197].
> >  
> > GIM>> I would propose another editorial update:
> > OLD TEXT:
> >    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].
> > NEW TEXT:
> >    SoP (Size of POT) field has two bits that indicate the size of "PktID" 
> >    and "Cumulative" data, which are specified in Section 4.5 of [RFC9197].  
> > WDYT?
> >  
> > [XM-2]>>> The new text proposed by Greg looks good to me.
> >  
> > --> 
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > 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).
> > [XM]>>> No objection. And I suggest to separate "Alternatively, if the IOAM encapsulating node...without TTL expiration." from the following paragraph, into a new paragraph.
> >  
> > GIM>> I agree with the proposed update. And I support the update proposed by Xuiao Min.  
> > --> 
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > 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].
> > [XM]>>> Please remove this sentence.
> > GIM>> I agree with Xiao Min's resolution.  
> > -->  
> >  
> >  
> > 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.
> > [XM]>>> No objection.
> >  
> > GIM>> I agree with the proposed update.  
> > --> 
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > 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
> > [XM]>>> I believe the current one is up-to-date.
> >  
> > GIM>> I've checked published RFCs, e.g., RFC 8029. It appears that N. Kumar is the right form.
> >  
> > [XM-2]>>> I checked the latest one RFC 9214, where "N. Nainar" is used. Considering his full name "Nagendra Kumar Nainar", I believe "N.K. Nainar" is up-to-date. Anyway, either one works for me. :)
> >  
> > --> 
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > 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.
> > [XM]>>> Yes, this term should be updated in this document.
> >  
> > GIM>> Thank you for pointing this out. You're correct, should use IOM-Domain.  
> >  
> >  
> > 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...").
> > [XM]>>> Please do s/Object Header/object header in the body of Section 3.2. Please do s/Object/the-full-name in the first sentence of all of the 3.2.* subsections.
> >  
> > GIM>> It seems to me that in  
> >    Similar to the container, each object has an object header that is
> >    used to identify the type and length of the object payload.   
> > "object header" refers to the field by its shortened name. If that is right, I think that capitalization is needed. WDYT?
> >  
> > [XM-2]>>> Make sense to me. To RFC Editor, Please do s/object header/Object Header in the body of Section 3.2. Please do s/Object/the-full-name in the first sentence of all of the 3.2.* subsections.
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > Cheers,
> >  
> > Xiao Min
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > 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.-->  
> > [XM]>>> Yes, IOAM should be added here.
> > GIM>> I agree as well.  
> >  
> >  
> > Best Regards,
> >  
> > Xiao Min
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > 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
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> 
>