Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9452 <draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-13> for your review

["Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" <[e-mail]>]

Dear RFC-editors,

Thanks a lot for the review and suggested edits. Please see inline (...FB)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, 1 August 2023 04:58
> To: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9452 <draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-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 ("In-situ" to "In Situ"):
> 
> Original:
> Network Service Header (NSH) Encapsulation for In-situ OAM (IOAM) Data
> 
> Current:
> Network Service Header (NSH) Encapsulation for In Situ OAM (IOAM) Data
> -->

...FB: Agreed. "In Situ" is consistent with earlier RFCs like RFC 9197.

> 
> 
> 2) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble understanding "by means of
> configuration."  Does the suggested text convey the intended meaning?
> Also, does "encapsulating/decapsulating" mean "encapsulating and
> decapsulating" or "encapsulating or decapsulating"?
> 
> Original:
>    In an administrative domain where IOAM is used,
>    insertion of the IOAM header in NSH is enabled at the NSH tunnel
>    endpoints, which also serve as IOAM encapsulating/decapsulating nodes
>    by means of configuration.
> 
> Perhaps:
>    In an administrative domain where IOAM is used,
>    insertion of the IOAM header in NSH is enabled at the NSH tunnel
>    endpoints, which are also configured to serve as IOAM encapsulating and
>    decapsulating nodes.
> -->

...FB: I agree with the suggested update. Tunnel endpoints are configured to serve as encapsulating and decapsulating nodes for IOAM.

> 
> 
> 3) <!-- [rfced] This text appears in and points to Section 3.  May we delete
> "Section 3"?  Please review.
> 
> Original:
>    The operator MUST ensure that SFC-aware
>    nodes along the Service Function Path support IOAM, otherwise packets
>    might be dropped (see Section 3 further below, as well as [RFC8300]
>    Section 2.2).
> 
> Perhaps:
>    The operator MUST ensure that SFC-aware
>    nodes along the Service Function Path support IOAM; otherwise, packets
>    might be dropped (see more below, as well as Section 2.2 of [RFC8300]).
> -->

...FB: Hmm. Referencing the very same section is indeed a bit confusing. What the "see Section 3 further below" statement tries to accomplish is refer the reader to the paragraph "Per Section 2.2 of RFC 8300, packets with Next Protocol... ". Given that this paragraph and the reference to it was added as part of the IESG review, IMHO it would make sense to keep the reference. Maybe we can clarify it to 

NEW:
The operator MUST ensure that SFC-aware
nodes along the Service Function Path support IOAM, otherwise packets
might be dropped (see the last paragraph of this section, as well as [RFC8300]
Section 2.2).



> 
> 
> 4) <!-- [rfced] Would it be helpful to expand MD for the reader?  Perhaps it
> could be added to list of abbreviations introduced in Section 2?

...FB: Good idea. We can add to section 2:

NEW:

MD: NSH Metadata, see [RFC7665].

> 
> -->
> 
> 
> 5) <!-- [rfced] For readability, we have updated the text as follows.  Please
> let us know if any corrections are needed.
> 
> Original:
>    Per Section 2.2 of [RFC8300], packets with Next Protocol values not
>    supported SHOULD be silently dropped by default.
> 
> Current:
>    Per Section 2.2 of [RFC8300], packets with unsupported Next Protocol
> values
>    SHOULD be silently dropped by default.
> -->

...FB: Agreed.

> 
> 
> 6) <!-- [rfced] For readability, may we update the text as follows?
> 
> Original:
>    IOAM is considered a "per domain" feature, where the operator decides
>    on leveraging and configuring IOAM according to the operator's needs.
> 
> Suggested:
>    IOAM is considered a "per domain" feature, where the operator decides
>    how to leverage and configure IOAM according to the operator's needs.
> -->
> 
...FB: Agreed.

> 
> 7) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, may we update the text as follows?  Please let us
> know if any corrections are needed.
> 
> Original:
>    Hardware and software friendly implementation: Hardware forwarders
>    benefit from an encapsulation that minimizes iterative look-ups of
>    fields within the packet: Any operation which looks up the value of a
>    field within the packet, based on which another lookup is performed,
>    consumes additional gates and time in an implementation - both of
>    which are desired to be kept to a minimum.
> 
> Current:
>    Hardware- and software-friendly implementation: Hardware forwarders
>    benefit from an encapsulation that minimizes iterative lookups of
>    fields within the packet. Any operation that looks up the value of a
>    field within the packet, based on which another lookup is performed,
>    consumes additional gates and time in an implementation, both of
>    which should be kept to a minimum.
> -->

...FB: Agreed.

> 
> 
> 8) <!-- [rfced] Terminology
> 
> a) We note that Figure 1 contains “IOAM Option and Optional Data Space”,
> while the text defines “IOAM Option and Data Space”. Please review and let
> us know if these should be consistent.

...FB:  Making the two consistent makes perfect sense. Figure 1 is more accurate. 

OLD:

IOAM Option and Data Space:
IOAM-Data-Fields as specified by the IOAM-Type field. IOAM-Data-Fields are defined corresponding to the IOAM-Option-Type (e.g., see Section 4 of [RFC9197] and Section 3.2 of [RFC9326]) and are always aligned by 4 octets, thus there is no padding field.

NEW:

IOAM Option and Optional Data Space:
IOAM-Data-Fields as specified by the IOAM-Type field. IOAM-Data-Fields are defined corresponding to the IOAM-Option-Type (e.g., see Section 4 of [RFC9197] and Section 3.2 of [RFC9326]) and are always aligned by 4 octets, thus there is no padding field.


> 
> 
> b) These terms may be used inconsistently.  Please review and let us know if
> the forms on the right (on the right of the arrow) should be used
> consistently, or if any other updates are needed.
> 
> IOAM-Data-fields & IOAM data fields -> IOAM-Data-Fields IOAM-Option-
> Types -> IOAM Option-Type
> -->

...FB: Agreed. Let's make things consistent with RFC9197:
IOAM-Data-Fields
IOAM-Option-Types


> 
> 
> 9) <!-- [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.
> -->

...FB: I've done another review but did not catch any problematic terms either.


Thanks again for your suggested edits and the thorough review.

Cheers, Frank

> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> RFC Editor
> 
> 
> On Jul 31, 2023, at 7:53 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> *****IMPORTANT*****
> 
> Updated 2023/07/31
> 
> 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/rfc9452.xml
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9452.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9452.pdf
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9452.txt
> 
> Diff file of the text:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9452-diff.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9452-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
> 
> Diff of the XML:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9452-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/rfc9452.original.v2v3.xml
> 
> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
> only:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9452.form.xml
> 
> 
> Tracking progress
> -----------------
> 
> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9452
> 
> Please let us know if you have any questions.
> 
> Thank you for your cooperation,
> 
> RFC Editor
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC9452 (draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-13)
> 
> Title            : Network Service Header (NSH) Encapsulation for In-situ OAM
> (IOAM) Data
> Author(s)        : F. Brockners, Ed., S. Bhandari, Ed.
> WG Chair(s)      : Joel M. Halpern, Jim Guichard
> 
> Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
>