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

[Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]>]

Xiao Min and Greg,

Apologies if we added to the confusion!  This has been updated as discussed between the two of you.
However, we feel one of the following further tweaks might make this text easier on the reader:

Current:
If the BFD packet is received with the value of the Your Discriminator field 0,..

Perhaps:
…with the value of the Your Discriminator field set to 0,…
or
…with a Your Discriminator field value of 0,…
or
If the Your Discriminator field of the BFD packet received has a value of 0,...

Please let us know if one of the above is agreeable.

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 6:09 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> Hi Megan,
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the revision.
> 
> Considering the one rejected change, I propose one more editorial change as below.
> 
> Section #5.1
> OLD:
> a Your Discriminator equals to 0
> NEW:
> a Your Discriminator equal to 0
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Xiao Min
> 
> Original
> From: MeganFerguson <[e-mail]>
> To: 肖敏10093570;Greg Mirsky <[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]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> Date: 2023年12月19日 05:38
> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9521 <draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve-13> for your review
> 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
> >  
> >  
> >  
> 
>