Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9486 <draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-12> for your review

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

Hi Sarah,

Thanks a lot for implementing the changes this quickly - and thanks for all your help improving the document and catching even small nits. Great work.
The documents looks good to me, i.e., I approve.

Cheers, Frank

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sarah Tarrant <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Monday, 25 September 2023 20:32
> To: Shwetha <[e-mail]>; Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
> <[e-mail]>
> Cc: RFC Editor <[e-mail]>; Shwetha Bhandari
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; ippm-
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Martin Duke
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9486 <draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-
> 12> for your review
> 
> Hello Frank and Swetha,
> 
> Thank you for your replies.
> 
> We have updated the document according to Frank’s reply.
> 
> 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. Note that we will await approvals from each author prior to moving
> forward in the publication process.
> 
> Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not
> make changes once it has been published as an RFC. 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.
> 
> Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the
> most recent version.
> 
> Updated XML file:
>  http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486.xml
> 
> Updated output files:
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486.html
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486.txt
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486.pdf
> 
> Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48:
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486-auth48diff.html
> 
> Comprehensive Diffs:
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486-diff.html
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486-rfcdiff.html (side-by-side diff)
> 
> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9486
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> RFC Editor/st
> 
> > On Sep 23, 2023, at 8:08 AM, Shwetha <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks much for the review and suggestions. +1 to Frank's response to
> the suggestions.
> > Looks good to me.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Shwetha
> >
> > On Sat, 23 Sept 2023, 6:21 pm Frank Brockners (fbrockne),
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Dear RFC editor,
> >
> > Thanks a lot for your review and suggestions. Please see inline below.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> > > Sent: Friday, 22 September 2023 07:02
> > > To: [e-mail]; Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
> > > <[e-mail]>
> > > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > > [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > > [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9486
> > > <draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-
> > > 12> 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] Would you like to rephrase the RFC's title as follows
> > > in order for "(IOAM)" to be included, similar to the title of RFC 9197?
> > >
> > > Original:
> > >   In-situ OAM IPv6 Options
> > >
> > > Current:
> > >   In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) IPv6
> > > Options
> > >
> > > Perhaps:
> > >   IPv6 Options for In Situ Operations, Administration, and
> > > Maintenance
> > > (IOAM)
> > > -->
> >
> > ...FB: Agreed. Consistency with RFC 9197 is a good thing.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear
> > > in the
> > > title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search.
> > > -->
> >
> > ...FB: Given that this document is about the encapsulation of IOAM into
> IPv6 options, IMHO the keywords in the title are sufficient.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > 3) <!-- [rfced] Section 1: To closely match the text in RFC 9197,
> > > should this text be updated to add "that IOAM is enabled for"?
> > >
> > > Original:
> > >    The terms "encapsulation" and "decapsulation" are used in this
> > >    document in the same way as in [RFC9197]: An IOAM encapsulating
> node
> > >    incorporates one or more IOAM-Option-Types into packets.
> > >
> > > Perhaps:
> > >    The terms "encapsulation" and "decapsulation" are used in this
> > >    document in the same way as in [RFC9197]: An IOAM encapsulating
> node
> > >    incorporates one or more IOAM-Option-Types into packets
> > >    that IOAM is enabled for.
> > > -->
> >
> > ...FB: Agreed.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > 4) <!-- [rfced] Section 3: FYI, in order to make it clear that the
> > > list goes with "Option Data", we have updated the text for as
> > > follows and changed the indentation of the list. Please review and let us
> know if you prefer otherwise.
> > >
> > > Original:
> > >    Option Data:  Variable-length field.  Option-Type-specific data.
> > >
> > >    IOAM Option data is inserted as follows:
> > >
> > >    1.  Pre-allocated Trace Option: ...
> > >        [...]
> > >
> > >    2.  Proof of Transit Option: ...
> > >        [...]
> > >
> > >
> > > Current:
> > >    Option Data:  Variable-length field.  The data is specific to the
> > >       Option Type, as detailed below.
> > >
> > >       Pre-allocated Trace Option: ...
> > >
> > >          Option Type: ...
> > >
> > >          IOAM Type: ...
> > >
> > >       Proof of Transit Option: ...
> > >
> > >          Option Type: ...
> > >
> > >          IOAM Type: ...
> > > -->
> >
> > ...FB: Agreed. The enumeration also didn't make a lot of sense, i.e., the
> simple list like you have it now, is better.
> > >
> > >
> > > 5) <!--[rfced] Section 3: The term "4n alignment" has not been used
> > > in in other RFCs. Would you like to update it as follows or otherwise?
> > > (The surrounding text is included for context; it uses the phrase "a
> > > multiple-
> > > of-4 offset".)
> > >
> > > Original:
> > >    All the IOAM IPv6 options defined here have alignment requirements.
> > >    Specifically, they all require 4n alignment.  This ensures that
> > >    fields specified in [RFC9197] are aligned at a multiple-of-4 offset
> > >    from the start of the hop-by-hop and destination options header.
> > >
> > > Perhaps:
> > >    All the IOAM IPv6 options defined here have alignment requirements.
> > >    Specifically, they all require alignment on multiples of 4 bytes.
> > >    This ensures that fields specified in [RFC9197] are aligned at
> > >    a multiple-of-4 offset from the start of the hop-by-hop and
> > >    destination options header.
> > > -->
> >
> > ...FB: Agreed.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > 6) <!--[rfced] Section 6: To confirm, is it intentional that the
> > > descriptions of the two option types exactly match?
> > > Both are "IOAM Destination Option and IOAM Hop-by-Hop Option", as
> > > shown in the registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-
> > > parameters/).
> > > -->
> >
> > ...FB: This is probably the best we can do. TBD_1_0 (0x11) and TBD_1_1
> (0x31) apply to both hop-by-hop as well as destination options.  An
> alternative would be to explicitly spell out which IOAM option types apply
> to which value - which would make the registry entries very long and also
> would require updating them, as soon as any newly defined IOAM option
> type would use a code point.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > 7) <!-- [rfced] Contributors section
> > >
> > > FYI, per Section 4.1.1 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"), we updated
> > > the document to have one section titled "Contributors". We have
> > > removed the sentence about "and the end of this document" and used
> > > the contact information from the "Contributors' Addresses".
> > >
> > > Current:
> > >    Contributors
> > >
> > >    This document was the collective effort of several authors.  The text
> > >    and content were contributed by the editors and the coauthors listed
> > >    below.
> > >
> > >       Carlos Pignataro
> > >       [...]
> > > -->
> > >
> >
> > ...FB: ACK. Makes sense.
> >
> > >
> > > 8) <!-- [rfced] Please review these terms and let us know if it's
> > > acceptable to update to the form on the right to match past RFCs,
> particularly RFC 9197.
> > >
> > >    Edge to Edge Option -> Edge-to-Edge Option
> > >    IOAM data fields -> IOAM Data-Fields
> > >    IOAM E2E option -> IOAM E2E Option
> > >    IOAM Option Type -> OAM Option-Type
> > >    IOAM domain -> IOAM-Domain
> > >    IOAM-Opt-Type -> IOAM Opt-Type
> > >    IOAM-Option-Types -> IOAM Option-Types
> > >    Option Type vs. Option-Type -> Option-Type
> > >    Proof of Transit Option -> Proof of Transit Option-Type
> > > -->
> >
> > ...FB: Perfect. Thanks for driving towards consistency.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > 9) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for abbreviations
> > > upon first use per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide").
> > > Please review each expansion in the document carefully to ensure
> correctness.
> > > -->
> >
> > ...FB: Thanks. All your expansions look good to me.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > 10) <!-- [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: Thanks. I did not catch any issues either.
> >
> > Thanks a lot for all the updates and suggested edits. With those, the doc
> looks ready to me.
> >
> > Thanks, Frank
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > RFC Editor/st/ar
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sep 21, 2023, [e-mail] wrote:
> > >
> > > *****IMPORTANT*****
> > >
> > > Updated 2023/09/21
> > >
> > > 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/rfc9486.xml
> > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486.html
> > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486.pdf
> > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486.txt
> > >
> > > Diff file of the text:
> > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486-diff.html
> > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486-rfcdiff.html (side by
> > > side)
> > >
> > > Diff of the XML:
> > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486-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/rfc9486.original.v2v3.xml
> > >
> > > XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format
> > > updates
> > > only:
> > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486.form.xml
> > >
> > > For your convenience, we have also created an alt-diff file that
> > > will allow you to more easily view changes where text has been
> > > deleted or
> > > moved:
> > >   http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486-alt-diff.html
> > >
> > > Tracking progress
> > > -----------------
> > >
> > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
> > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9486
> > >
> > > Please let us know if you have any questions.
> > >
> > > Thank you for your cooperation,
> > >
> > > RFC Editor
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------
> > > RFC9486 (draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-12)
> > >
> > > Title            : In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
> > > IPv6 Options
> > > Author(s)        : S. Bhandari, Ed., F. Brockners, Ed.
> > > WG Chair(s)      : Marcus Ihlar, Tommy Pauly
> > > Area Director(s) : Martin Duke, Zaheduzzaman Sarker