Re: [auth48] [IAB] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9419 <draft-iab-path-signals-collaboration-03> for your review

[Karen Moore <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tommy,

Thank you for your reply. We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9419).

We now await further updates (if needed) and approvals from the rest of your coauthors.

Best regards,

RFC Editor/kc

> On Jun 21, 2023, at 11:21 AM, Tommy Pauly <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Karen,
> 
> This version looks good to me. Please put me down as approving this!
> 
> Best,
> Tommy
> 
>> On Jun 21, 2023, at 10:55 AM, Karen Moore <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hello authors,
>> 
>> Please review Ted’s rewrite of bullet points 4, 5, and 6 in Section 3 (to make them complete sentences) and let us know if the wording is agreeable or if further changes are needed (note that we rephrased the first sentence of point 4 slightly for clarity). For ease, the update is below. To view a diff of only this change, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9419-lastdiff.html or https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9419-lastrfcdiff.html (side-by-side).
>> 
>> Section 3
>> Old:
>>  *  Ways of protecting information when held by network elements or
>>     servers, beyond communications security.  For instance, host
>>     applications commonly share sensitive information about the user's
>>     actions with other parties, starting from basic data, such as
>>     domain names learned by DNS infrastructure or source and
>>     destination addresses and protocol header information learned by
>>     all routers on the path, to detailed end-user identity and other
>>     information learned by the servers.  Some solutions are starting
>>     to exist for this but are not widely deployed, at least not today
>>     [Oblivious] [PDoT] [DNS-CONFIDENTIAL] [HTTP-OBLIVIOUS].  These
>>     solutions address also very specific parts of the issue, and more
>>     work remains.
>> 
>>  *  Sharing information from networks to applications.  There are some
>>     working examples of this, e.g., ECN.  A few other proposals have
>>     been made (see, e.g., [MOBILE-THROUGHPUT-GUIDANCE]), but very few
>>     of those have seen deployment.
>> 
>>  *  Sharing information from applications to networks.  There are a
>>     few working examples of this (see Section 1).  Numerous proposals
>>     have been made in this space, but most of them have not progressed
>>     through standards or been deployed for a variety of reasons
>>     [RFC9049].  However, several current or recent proposals exist,
>>     such as [NETWORK-TOKENS].
>> 
>> New:
>> *  Work has begun on mechanisms that dissociate the information held
>>     by servers from knowledge of the user's network location and
>>     behavior.  Among the solutions that exist for this but are not
>>     widely deployed are [Oblivious] [PDoT] [DNS-CONFIDENTIAL]
>>     [HTTP-OBLIVIOUS].  These solutions address specific parts of the
>>     issue, and more work remains to find ways to limit the spread of
>>     information about the user's actions.  Host applications currently
>>     share sensitive information about the user's action with a variety
>>     of infrastructure and path elements, starting from basic data,
>>     such as domain names, source and destination addresses, and
>>     protocol header information.  This can expand to detailed end-user
>>     identity and other information learned by the servers.  Work to
>>     protect all of this information is needed.
>> 
>>  *  Work is needed to explore how to increase the deployment of
>>     mechanisms for sharing information from networks to applications.
>>     There are some working examples of this, e.g., ECN.  A few other
>>     proposals have been made (see, e.g.,
>>     [MOBILE-THROUGHPUT-GUIDANCE]), but very few of those have seen
>>     deployment.
>> 
>>  *  Additional work on sharing information from applications to
>>     networks would also be valuable.  There are a few working examples
>>     of this (see Section 1).  Numerous proposals have been made in
>>     this space, but most of them have not progressed through standards
>>     or been deployed for a variety of reasons [RFC9049].  However,
>>     several current or recent proposals exist, such as
>>     [NETWORK-TOKENS].
>> 
>> FILES (please refresh):
>> 
>> The updated XML file is here:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9419.xml
>> 
>> The updated output files are here:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9419.txt
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9419.pdf
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9419.html
>> 
>> These diff files show only the changes made during the last edit round:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9419-lastdiff.html
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9419-lastrfcdiff.html (side-by-side)
>> 
>> This diff file shows all changes made during AUTH48:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9419-auth48diff.html
>> 
>> This diff file shows all changes made to date:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9419-diff.html
>> 
>> Please contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form.  We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the publication process.
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> 
>> RFC Editor/kc
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jun 14, 2023, at 1:42 AM, Ted Hardie <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Some suggested changes for the fragmented introductions to Section 3's items 4,5, and 6:
>>> 
>>> Work has begun on mechanisms on dissociating the information held by servers from knowledge of the user's network location and behavior. Among the solutions which exist for this but are not widely deployed are  [Oblivious] [PDoT] [DNS-CONFIDENTIAL] [HTTP-OBLIVIOUS]. These solutions address specific parts of the issue, and more work remains to find ways to limit the spread of information about the user's actions.  Host applications currently share sensitive information about the user's action with a variety of infrastructure and path elements, starting from basic data, such as domain names, source and destination addresses, and protocol header information.  This can exland to detailed end-user identity and other information learned by the servers.  Work to protect all of this information is needed.
>>> 
>>> Work is needed to explore how to increase the deployment of mechanisms for sharing information from networks to applications. There are some working examples of this, e.g., ECN. A few other proposals have been made (see, e.g., [MOBILE-THROUGHPUT-GUIDANCE]), but very few of those have seen deployment.
>>> 
>>> Additional work on sharing information from applications to networks would also be valuable. There are a few working examples of this (see Section 1). Numerous proposals have been made in this space, but most of them have not progressed through standards or been deployed for a variety of reasons [RFC9049]. However, several current or recent proposals exist, such as [NETWORK-TOKENS].
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The rewrite for 4 (the first one above) is pretty major, so the other authors should be sure it reflects what they want.
>>> 
>>> regards,
>>> 
>>> Ted
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 10:04 PM Alice Russo <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> Mirja, Tommy,
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you for your replies. The updated files are here (please refresh):
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9419.txt
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9419.pdf
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9419.html
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9419.xml (source)
>>>> 
>>>> Diff showing all changes from the approved I-D:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9419-rfcdiff.html
>>>> 
>>>> Diff showing only the most recent changes (for items 2 and 4 below):
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9419-lastrfcdiff.html
>>>> 
>>>> To summarize:
>>>> 
>>>> 1) no change re: 'evolvability'.
>>>> 
>>>> 2) Each of you prefer the current title, but are OK with Option B.
>>>> We have updated the title to Option B (with 's' added to 'Application').
>>>> 
>>>> Tommy wrote:
>>>> Does the RFC editor consider the existing title to be too confusing?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Correct; the meaning is ambiguous due to the hyphen.
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>> Considerations on Application - Network Collaboration Using Path Signals
>>> 
>>> Updated:
>>> Considerations on the Collaboration between Applications and Networks Using Path Signals
>>> 
>>> However, you might consider:
>>> Considerations on Using Path Signals for Collaboration between Applications and Networks
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 3) awaiting reply re: rephrase in Section 2.1.
>>> 
>>> 4) Tommy wrote:
>>>> Is this list correct? The document was approved in our 12/07/22 meeting: https://www.iab.org/documents/minutes/minutes-2022/iab-minutes-2022-12-07/
>>>> 
>>>> At that time, it was the previous IAB that approved the document.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thank you for pointing this out. We have updated the list of "IAB Members at the Time of Approval” to match the IAB members in the minutes from 7 Dec 2022.  Please review to ensure correctness.
>>> 
>>> 5) awaiting reply re: complete sentences for the list in Section 3.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The AUTH48 status of this document is here:
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9419
>>> 
>>> Thank you.
>>> RFC Editor/ar
>>> 
>>>>> On Jun 8, 2023, at 9:35 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind <mirja.kuehlewind=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> regarding the title. I would be okay with option B. I think option A is not correct. But I also slightly prefer the existing title but don’t have a strong opinion.
>>>> 
>>>> Mirja
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> From: Tommy Pauly <tpauly=[e-mail]>
>>>> Date: Thursday, 8. June 2023 at 17:51
>>>> To: Karen Moore <[e-mail]>, Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>
>>>> Cc: Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]>, Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>, RFC Editor <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, IAB <[e-mail]>
>>>> Subject: Re: [IAB] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9419 <draft-iab-path-signals-collaboration-03> for your review
>>>> 
>>>> Hello,
>>>> 
>>>> First of all, thanks very much for the edits. They look good in general, and I agree with everything Mirja and Ted have said!
>>>> 
>>>> Some responses inline.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jun 2, 2023, at 3:31 PM, Karen Moore <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hello Mira and Ted,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you for the quick replies; we have updated our files accordingly. Note that we have a few follow-up questions/clarifications.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1) Regarding “evolvability”, this term has been used in earlier RFCs (e.g., RFCs 1077, 2276, 3426, and 6077). Since it is an established technical term per Mira’s comment, and because Ted included it within a suggested rephrase, we went ahead and reverted to the original text (only 3 instances). However, if you prefer to use "ability for protocols to evolve”, please let us know.
>>>> 
>>>> Please keep “evolvability” as you have it now. This reads cleanly, I think.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> [MK] I also noticed in the xml that you replaced “evolvability” with "ability for protocols to evolve”. I think this is not wrong but I see evolvability actually as a technical term that has been established in the mean time. What do the other authors think?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ...
>>>>> 2) For the document title, would it be correct to add “and” (option A) or to rephrase for clarity (option B) as follows?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>> A)   Considerations on Application and Network Collaboration Using Path Signals
>>>>> or
>>>>> B)   Considerations on the Collaboration between Application and Networks Using Path Signals
>>>> 
>>>> I consider option (B) to be the more accurate interpretation here. I would be fine with this version of the title if everyone else agrees, although I’m also happy with the existing title. Does the RFC editor consider the existing title to be too confusing?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ...
>>>>> 3) To make this sentence grammatically correct, may we rephrase it slightly as follows?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original:
>>>>> The goal is that any information should be provided knowingly, for a
>>>>> specific purpose, sent in signals designed for that purpose, and that
>>>>> any use of information should be done within that purpose. In addition...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>> The goal is that any information should be provided knowingly, for a
>>>>> specific purpose, and sent in signals designed for that purpose, and any
>>>>> use of information should be done within that purpose. In addition…
>>>>> 
>>>>> ...
>>>>> 4) FYI: We have added the "IAB Members at the Time of Approval” section before the Acknowledgements.
>>>> 
>>>> Is this list correct? The document was approved in our 12/07/22 meeting: https://www.iab.org/documents/minutes/minutes-2022/iab-minutes-2022-12-07/
>>>> 
>>>> At that time, it was the previous IAB that approved the document.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ...
>>>>> 5) FYI: We will await your rephrasing of the bullet points in Section 3 (to make them complete sentences).
>>>> 
>>>> Ted, let me know if you’re working on that or if you’d like me to take a stab instead!
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> Tommy
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> FILES
>>>>> The updated XML file is here:
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9419.xml
>>>>> 
>>>>> The updated output files are here:
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9419.txt
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9419.pdf
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9419.html
>>>>> 
>>>>> This diff file shows all changes made during AUTH48:
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9419-auth48diff.html
>>>>> 
>>>>> This diff file shows all changes made to date:
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9419-diff.html
>>>>> 
>>>>> Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the most recent version. Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form.  We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the publication process.
>>>>> 
>>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9419
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> 
>>>>> RFC Editor/kc
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jun 2, 2023, at 7:10 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind <mirja.kuehlewind=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> My replies inline as well.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I also noticed in the xml that you replaced “evolvability” with "ability for protocols to evolve”. I think this is not wrong but I see evolvability actually as a technical term that has been established in the mean time. What do the other authors think?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 2. Jun 2023, at 11:29, Ted Hardie <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Some personal answers to the questions in-line.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 7:53 PM <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>> Authors,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 1) <!--[rfced] Would it be correct to rephrase the document title as
>>>>>>> follows for clarity (i.e., "Application Considerations for"
>>>>>>> instead of "Considerations on Application -")?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>> Considerations on Application - Network Collaboration
>>>>>>> Using Path Signals
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>>> Application Considerations for Network Collaboration
>>>>>>> Using Path Signals
>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> No, I don't think this change is correct; both the network and applications have this to consider here so it isn't just "application considerations".
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This change would not be correct. It’s about the collaboration between application and networks.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search.
>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I can’t really come up with any additional keys. I think the titles covers everything well.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 3) <!--[rfced] Informative reference RFC 793 has been obsoleted by RFC 9293.
>>>>>>> Per Section 4.8.6 in the RFC Style Guide (RFC 7322), we recommend
>>>>>>> replacing RFC 793 with RFC 9293.  May we update the reference?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>> For instance, on-path elements use various fields of the
>>>>>>> TCP header [RFC0793] to derive information about
>>>>>>> end-to-end latency as well as congestion.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Suggested:
>>>>>>> For instance, on-path elements use various fields of the
>>>>>>> TCP header [RFC9293] to derive information about
>>>>>>> end-to-end latency as well as congestion.
>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I am okay with this change.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yes, thanks!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] FYI, to make the two categories easier to read, we
>>>>>>> formatted this text as a list. Please let us know of any
>>>>>>> objections.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>> Many protocol mechanisms throughout the stack fall into one of two
>>>>>>> categories: authenticated and private communication that is only
>>>>>>> visible to a very limited set of parties, often one on each "end";
>>>>>>> and unauthenticated public communication that is also visible to all
>>>>>>> network elements on a path.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Current:
>>>>>>> Many protocol mechanisms throughout the stack fall into one of two
>>>>>>> categories:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> *  authenticated private communication that is only visible to a
>>>>>>>    very limited set of parties, often one on each "end", and
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> *  unauthenticated public communication that is visible to all
>>>>>>>    network elements on a path.
>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I prefer the first, but if the other authors prefer the second I can agree.  The reason I prefer the first is that we were not trying to create an exhaustive enumeration but were introducing a common pair of patterns.  I believe the list form will tend to lure the reader into assuming the list is exhaustive when it is not.  I do recognize that this is explicitly disclaimed, which is why I will agree if the other authors prefer this formulation.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I agree with Ted and also prefer the original version.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 5) <!--[rfced] To avoid using "ensures" and "ensuring" in close
>>>>>>> proximity, may we rephrase this sentence as follows?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>> For instance, QUIC replaces TCP for various applications and ensures
>>>>>>> end-to-end signals are only accessible by the endpoints, ensuring
>>>>>>> evolvability [RFC9000].
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>>> For instance, QUIC replaces TCP for various applications so that
>>>>>>> end-to-end signals are only accessible by the endpoints, ensuring
>>>>>>> the ability to evolve [RFC9000].
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I don't think this captures the sense of the original. Would this work:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> For instance, QUIC replaces TCP for various applications and protects end-to-end signals so that they are only accessible by the endpoints, ensuring evolvability [RFC9000].
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ted proposals looks good!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] FYI, to make the items easier to read, we formatted this text
>>>>>>> as a list. Please let us know of any objections.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>> Authentication and trust
>>>>>>> must be considered in both directions: how endpoints trust and
>>>>>>> authenticate signals from network path elements, and how network path
>>>>>>> elements trust and authenticate signals from endpoints.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Current:
>>>>>>> Authentication and trust
>>>>>>> must be considered in both directions:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> *  how endpoints trust and authenticate signals from network path
>>>>>>>    elements and
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> *  how network path elements trust and authenticate signals from
>>>>>>>    endpoints.
>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I do not personally believe this improves the readability.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I also prefer the original.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 7) <!--[rfced] We rephrased this sentence for clarity; please let us know
>>>>>>> of any objections.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>> This section also provides some examples and explanation
>>>>>>> of situations that not following the principles can lead to.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Current:
>>>>>>> This section also provides some examples and explanation
>>>>>>> of situations that can arise when the principles are not
>>>>>>> followed.
>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Would this work:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This section also provides examples and explores the consequences of not following these principles in those examples.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ted’s proposal works for me.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Please clarify "they are from and to other parties". Would "they
>>>>>>> are coming from and going to other parties" help clarify?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>> Note that these communications are conceptually
>>>>>>> independent of the base flow, even if they share a packet; they are
>>>>>>> from and to other parties, rather than creating a multiparty
>>>>>>> communication.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>>> Note that these communications are conceptually
>>>>>>> independent of the base flow, even if they share a packet; they are
>>>>>>> coming from and going to other parties, rather than creating a
>>>>>>> multiparty communication.
>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I am fine with this change.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Okay.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 9) <!-- [rfced] We would like to rephrase this information as follows for
>>>>>>> clarity and to reduce redundancy. Please let us know if the
>>>>>>> preferred text is agreeable or if you prefer otherwise.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>> The goal is that any information should be provided knowingly, for a
>>>>>>> specific purpose, sent in signals designed for that purpose, and that
>>>>>>> any use of information should be done within that purpose.  And that
>>>>>>> an analysis of the security and privacy implications of the specific
>>>>>>> purpose and associated information is needed.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>>> The goal is that any information should be provided knowingly for a
>>>>>>> specific purpose, sent in signals designed for that purpose, and used
>>>>>>> within that purpose. In addition, an analysis of the security and privacy
>>>>>>> implications of the specific purpose and associated information is needed.
>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I think the phrasing of the second sentence is an improvement, but I prefer the original formulation of the first sentence.  In particular, I believe "should be provided knowingly, for a specific purpose," is clearer that the two elements are distinct characteristics of the goal.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yes, knowingly and specific purpose are two separate points.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 10) <!--[rfced] Would it be clearer to say "Even if" instead of "Whether"
>>>>>>> and "it does not mean" instead of "it does not follow" in the
>>>>>>> following sentence?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>> Whether a communication is with an application server or
>>>>>>> network element that can be shown to be associated with a particular
>>>>>>> domain name, it does not follow that information about the user can
>>>>>>> be safely sent to it.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>>> Even if communication with an application server or network
>>>>>>> element can be shown to be associated with a particular
>>>>>>> domain name, it does not mean that information about the
>>>>>>> user can be safely sent to it.
>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I don't have a suggestion here--Jari, any thoughts on this one?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This change would not be correct. The domain name part only applies to network elements.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 11) <!--[rfced] The following list is not parallel. Please let us know if
>>>>>>> the perhaps text captures the intended meaning.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>> And of course we need to choose such cases where the collaboration
>>>>>>> can be performed safely, is not a privacy concern, and the
>>>>>>> incentives of the relevant parties are aligned.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>>> And, of course, we need to choose such cases where the collaboration
>>>>>>> can be performed safely, there are no privacy concerns, and the
>>>>>>> incentives of the relevant parties are aligned.
>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Would this work:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> And of course we need to choose cases where the collaboration
>>>>>>> can be performed safely, where it is not a privacy concern, and where the
>>>>>>> incentives of the relevant parties are aligned.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The original had a specific focus:  the collaboration not being a privacy concern.  I'm a bit concerned that "there are no privacy concerns" is too expansive.  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Agree this Ted.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 12) <!--[rfced] Some of the bullet points in this list begin with a
>>>>>>> complete sentence and some begin with a fragmented sentence (see
>>>>>>> #4, #5, and #6). Please let us know if/how we may make the list
>>>>>>> parallel.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>> *  Some forms of collaboration may depend on business arrangements,
>>>>>>>    which may or may not be easy to put in place.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> *  Secure communications with path elements is needed as discussed in
>>>>>>>    Section 2.3.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> *  The use of path signals for reducing the effects of denial-of-
>>>>>>>    service attacks, e.g., perhaps modern forms of "source quench"
>>>>>>>    designs could be developed.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> *  Ways of protecting information when held by network elements or
>>>>>>>    servers, beyond communications security.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> *  Sharing information from networks to applications.  
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> *  Sharing information from applications to networks.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> *  Data privacy regimes generally deal with more issues than merely
>>>>>>>    whether some information is shared with another party or not.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> *  The present work has focused on the technical aspects of making
>>>>>>>    collaboration safe and mutually beneficial, but of course,
>>>>>>>    deployments need to take into account various regulatory and other
>>>>>>>    policy matters.
>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I think  these should all be complete sentences; if everyone agrees, I can take a whack at some suggested expansions.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sure we can do that. Please do!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 13) <!--[rfced] For better readability, we combined the following
>>>>>>> sentences. Please let us know if this is accurate or please clarify.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>> Finding practical ways for this has been difficult, both from the
>>>>>>> mechanics and scalability point view.  And also because there
>>>>>>> is no easy way to find out which parties to trust or what trust
>>>>>>> roots would be appropriate.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Current:
>>>>>>> Finding practical ways for this has been difficult, both from the
>>>>>>> mechanics and scalability point of view, especially because there
>>>>>>> is no easy way to find out which parties to trust or what trust
>>>>>>> roots would be appropriate.
>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I think it would be "partially because" rather than "especially because" if you combine them, but I'm okay with keeping "especially because" if others prefer it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yes, are that “partially because” would be better.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 14) <!--[rfced] May we rephrase this sentence for clarity as follows?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>> Data privacy regimes generally deal with more issues than merely
>>>>>>> whether some information is shared with another party or not.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>>> Data privacy regimes generally deal with multiple issues, not just
>>>>>>> whether or not some information is shared with another party.
>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I am okay with this change.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Okay for me.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 15) <!-- [rfced] IAB Formatting
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> a) Please review the guidance for IAB documents
>>>>>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/iab-format.txt> and let us know if any
>>>>>>> changes are needed.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Note that if you include an "IAB Members at the Time of Approval" section
>>>>>>> (since this document has IAB consensus), it will appear before the
>>>>>>> Acknowledgements section and will list the members listed on <https://www.iab.org/about/iab-members/> unless you specify otherwise.
>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yes, please include this section.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 16) <!-- [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.
>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Mirja
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> RFC Editor/st/kc
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Jun 1, 2023, at 11:52 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Updated 2023/06/01
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 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/rfc9419.xml
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9419.html
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9419.pdf
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9419.txt
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Diff file of the text:
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9419-diff.html
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9419-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Diff of the XML:
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9419-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/rfc9419.original.v2v3.xml
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
>>>>>>> only:
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9419.form.xml
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Tracking progress
>>>>>>> -----------------
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9419
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.  
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> RFC Editor
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>>>> RFC9419 (draft-iab-path-signals-collaboration-03)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Title            : Considerations on Application - Network Collaboration Using Path Signals
>>>>>>> Author(s)        : J. Arkko, T. Hardie, T. Pauly, M. Kuehlewind
>>>>>>> WG Chair(s)      :
>>>>>>> Area Director(s) :
>>>>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>