Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9268 <draft-ietf-6man-mtu-option-15> for your review - Author feedback

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

Erik,

I wanted to add that it is the authors recommendation to keep the implementation section.  The pointer to the VPP source might be useful to another implementor.

Bob

> On Aug 16, 2022, at 9:30 AM, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Erik,
> 
> This is a friendly reminder that we await your review and confirmation that the Implementation Status section should remain in this document.
> 
> The latest files are posted here (please refresh):
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268.xml
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268.txt
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268.pdf
> 
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268-rfcdiff.html (comprehensive diff with changes side by side)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268-lastdiff.html (last version to this one)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268-lastrfcdiff.html (last version to this one with changes side by side)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes)
> 
> The AUTH48 status page is here:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9268
> 
> Thank you,
> RFC Editor/ap
> 
>> On Aug 9, 2022, at 8:16 AM, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Gorry,
>> 
>> We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9268
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> RFC Editor/ap
>> 
>> 
>>> On Aug 9, 2022, at 12:32 AM, Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 08/08/2022 20:29, Alanna Paloma wrote:
>>>> Hi Bob and Gorry,
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you for your replies. We have noted Bob’s approval on the AUTH48 status page and updated the files per Gorry’s request.
>>>> 
>>>> Once we have received approvals from Erik and Gorry, we will ask IANA to update their registry accordingly. After the IANA updates are complete, we will move forward with the publication process.
>>>> 
>>>> The latest files are posted here (please refresh):
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268.xml
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268.txt
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268.html
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268.pdf
>>>> 
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268-rfcdiff.html (comprehensive diff with changes side by side)
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268-lastdiff.html (last version to this one)
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268-lastrfcdiff.html (last version to this one with changes side by side)
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes)
>>>> 
>>>> The AUTH48 status page is here:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9268
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> RFC Editor/ap
>>> 
>>> Thanks for making these changes. I'll add my approval also for publication.
>>> 
>>> Gorry
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>> On Aug 8, 2022, at 4:31 AM, Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 05/08/2022 23:53, Bob Hinden wrote:
>>>>>> Alanna,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks very much, the new version looks fine to me.  I approve.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Bob
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks for all your work, this is nearlky ready. I have done a detailed review of the final formatted version and have a few minor additional requests:
>>>>> 
>>>>> (a) Format: Section 2 para 2 appears to be a continuation of the first para.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please concatenate para 1 with para 2:
>>>>> 
>>>>> OLD:
>>>>> 
>>>>> or do not have a return
>>>>>  path to the source host.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  This results in many transport-layer connections being
>>>>> 
>>>>> NEW:
>>>>> 
>>>>> or do not have a return path to the source host.This results in many transport-layer connections being
>>>>> ====
>>>>> 
>>>>> (b) Figure 2 explanatory text, appears to have lost the indent for the explanation of Length. Please ident lines to be consistent with other definitions in this block.
>>>>> 
>>>>> OLD:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Length:  4  The size of the value field in Option Data
>>>>> field supports PMTU values from 0 to 65,534 octets, the
>>>>> maximum size represented by the Path MTU Option.
>>>>> 
>>>>> NEW:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Length: 4 The size of the value field in Option Data
>>>>> 
>>>>>       field supports PMTU values from 0 to 65,534
>>>>> 
>>>>>       octets, the maximum size represented by the
>>>>> 
>>>>>       Path MTU Option.
>>>>> 
>>>>> ----
>>>>> (c) Section 6.3.1.
>>>>> We previously requested you to move the definition
>>>>> of DPLPMTUD earlier in the document, which I can see you did.
>>>>> This means there is now no need for a re-definition here:
>>>>> 
>>>>> OLD:
>>>>> A datagram transport can utilize Datagram Packetization Layer PMTU
>>>>>     Discovery (DPLPMTUD) [RFC8899].
>>>>> NEW:
>>>>> A datagram transport can utilize DPLPMTUD [RFC8899].
>>>>> 
>>>>> ---
>>>>> (d) In Figure 3:
>>>>> Please remove last dash and replace by an arrow,
>>>>> in line prior to "..." to
>>>>> be consistent with other packets sent from left top right:
>>>>> 
>>>>> OLD:
>>>>>    ----Packets of data size d -------------------------------
>>>>> NEW:
>>>>>    ----Packets of data size d ------------------------------>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ---
>>>>> (e) It would be helpful to add a comma before "d" in this case:
>>>>> 
>>>>> OLD:
>>>>> confirmed probe size d.
>>>>> NEW:
>>>>> confirmed probe size, d.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Gorry
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Aug 5, 2022, at 3:11 PM, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi *Erik, Bob, and Gorry,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thank you for your replies. We have updated the files as requested.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Note that we have reverted the text to <artwork> as requested. FYI, we used <dl> because it seemed appropriate use of the XML. If RFC 8200 were being published today, we would have used <dl> for that list.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> *Erik - As the AD, please review and confirm that the Implementation Status section should remain in this document.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268-auth48diff.html
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268.xml
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268.txt
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268.html
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268.pdf
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268-diff.html
>>>>>>> (comprehensive diff)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268-rfcdiff.html
>>>>>>> (comprehensive diff with changes side by side)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268-lastdiff.html
>>>>>>> (last version to this one)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268-lastrfcdiff.html
>>>>>>> (last version to this one with changes side by side)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268-auth48diff.html
>>>>>>> (AUTH48 changes)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Please review the document carefully as documents do not change once published as RFCs.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We will await any further changes you may have and approvals from each author and *Erik prior to moving forward in the publication process.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9268
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>> RFC Editor/ap
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Aug 4, 2022, at 2:02 AM, Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks for this review. Please see below the detailed feedback following your review,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9268 <draft-ietf-6man-mtu-option-15> for your review
>>>>>>>>> Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2022 08:03:11 -0700 (PDT)
>>>>>>>>> From:
>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> To:
>>>>>>>>> [e-mail], [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> CC:
>>>>>>>>> [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Authors,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on
>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/search
>>>>>>>>> . -->
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Auth: These are our suggestions:
>>>>>>>> DPLPMTUD
>>>>>>>> PMTUD
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 2) <!--[rfced] Figure titles: Would you like to provide captions for the figures in this document?
>>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Auth: Yes, please do add captions, as below:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> NEW:
>>>>>>>> Figure 1: An example path between the source host and the destination host.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Figure 2: Three scenarios that arise from using the path shown in Figure 1.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Figure 3: Format of the Minimum Path MTU Hop-by-Hop Option.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 3) <!--[rfced] We see a number of author-inserted comments in the .xml file
>>>>>>>>> for this document. We are unsure if these have been resolved. Please
>>>>>>>>> review and let us know if these can be deleted or if they need to be
>>>>>>>>> addressed.
>>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Please remove prior to publication.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Auth: OK
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] Section 5: Please review the formatting of the descriptions of the Minimum Path MTU Hop-by-Hop Option, and let us know if any changes are needed.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>>>> Option Type (see Section 4.2 of [RFC8200]):
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> BB 00 Skip over this option and continue processing.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> C 1 Option data can change en route to the packet's final
>>>>>>>>> destination.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> TTTTT 10000 Option Type assigned from IANA [IANA-HBH].
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Length: 4 The size of the value field in Option Data
>>>>>>>>> field supports PMTU values from 0 to 65,534 octets, the
>>>>>>>>> maximum size represented by the Path MTU option.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Min-PMTU: n 16-bits. The minimum MTU recorded along the path
>>>>>>>>> in octets, reflecting the smallest link MTU that
>>>>>>>>> the packet experienced along the path.
>>>>>>>>> A value less than the IPv6 minimum link
>>>>>>>>> MTU [RFC8200] MUST be ignored.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Rtn-PMTU: n 15-bits. The returned Path MTU field, carrying the 15
>>>>>>>>> most significant bits of the latest received Min-PMTU
>>>>>>>>> field for the forward path. The value zero means that
>>>>>>>>> no Reported MTU is being returned.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> R n 1-bit. R-Flag. Set by the source to signal that
>>>>>>>>> the destination host should include the received
>>>>>>>>> Rtn-PMTU field updated by the reported Min-PMTU value
>>>>>>>>> when the destination host is to send a PMTU Option back
>>>>>>>>> to the source host.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Current:
>>>>>>>>> BB 00
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Skip over this option and continue processing.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> C 1
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Option data can change en route to the packet's final
>>>>>>>>> destination.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> TTTTT 10000
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Option Type assigned from IANA [IANA-HBH].
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Length: 4
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The size of the value field in the Option Data field
>>>>>>>>> supports PMTU values from 0 to 65,534 octets, which is the
>>>>>>>>> maximum size represented by the Path MTU option.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Min-PMTU: n
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 16-bits. The minimum MTU recorded along the path in
>>>>>>>>> octets, reflecting the smallest link MTU that the packet
>>>>>>>>> experienced along the path. A value less than the IPv6
>>>>>>>>> minimum link MTU [RFC8200] MUST be ignored.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Rtn-PMTU: n
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 15-bits. The returned Path MTU field, carrying the 15
>>>>>>>>> most significant bits of the latest received Min-PMTU
>>>>>>>>> field for the forward path. The value zero means that no
>>>>>>>>> Reported MTU is being returned.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> R n
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 1-bit. R-Flag. Set by the source to signal that the
>>>>>>>>> destination host should include the received Rtn-PMTU
>>>>>>>>> field updated by the reported Min-PMTU value when the
>>>>>>>>> destination host is to send a PMTU Option back to the
>>>>>>>>> source host.
>>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Auth: Bob raised an issuem about this proposal.
>>>>>>>>> 5) <!--[rfced] Section 6.3: We note that the following text states that probe packets are used for "two distinct functions"; however, it is then followed by a list of four items. May we update this list to maintain the first two items and move the last two items into separate paragraphs?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>>>> PLPMTUD [RFC9000] uses probe packets for two distinct functions:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> * Probe packets are used to confirm connectivity...
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> * A second use of probe packets is to explore if a path supports a
>>>>>>>>> packet size greater than the current PLPMTU...
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> * The PMTU Hop-by-Hop Option Probe can be sent on packets that
>>>>>>>>> include application data...
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> * Using a PMTU Probe on packets that do not carry application data
>>>>>>>>> will avoid the need for loss recovery...
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>>>>> PLPMTUD [RFC9000] uses probe packets for two distinct functions:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> * Probe packets are used to confirm connectivity...
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> * A second use of probe packets is to explore if a path supports a
>>>>>>>>> packet size greater than the current PLPMTU...
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The PMTU Hop-by-Hop Option probe can be sent on packets that
>>>>>>>>> include application data...
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Using a PMTU probe on packets that do not carry application data
>>>>>>>>> will avoid the need for loss recovery...
>>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Auth:
>>>>>>>> This REF seems slightly wonky.
>>>>>>>> The RFC to be cited is RFC 8899.
>>>>>>>> The change itself looks OK.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] Section 6.3.5: We have updated "R-bit" to "R-Flag" in the following. Please let us know if any changes are necessary.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>>>> To bound the delay in discovering an increase in
>>>>>>>>> the actual PMTU, a host with a link MTU larger than the current PMTU
>>>>>>>>> SHOULD periodically send the MinPMTU HBH Option with the R-bit set.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Current:
>>>>>>>>> To bound the delay in discovering an increase in
>>>>>>>>> the actual PMTU, a host with a link MTU larger than the current PMTU
>>>>>>>>> SHOULD periodically send the MinPMTU HBH Option with the R-Flag set.
>>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Auth: Yes, we agree.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 7) <!-- [rfced] Section 7: IANA has recorded the following description in the "Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options" registry <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/>
>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> IANA registry: Path MTU Record Option
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Should the description in the registry instead say "Minimum Path MTU Hop-by-Hop Option"?
>>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Auth: Yes, we agree.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Section 8.6: We are having difficulty parsing the following sentence. Does the forged packet cause a packet with a MinPMTU HBH option to be sent?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Current:
>>>>>>>>> When a forged packet causes a packet to be sent including the MinPMTU
>>>>>>>>> HBH option and the return path does not forward packets with this
>>>>>>>>> option, the packet will be dropped (see Section 6.3.6).
>>>>>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>>>>> When a forged packet causes a packet that includes the MinPMTU HBH option to be sent and the return path does not forward packets with this option, the packet will be dropped (see Section 6.3.6).
>>>>>>>>> -->
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Auth: Yes. This change looks good
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 9) <!--[rfced] Per RFC 7942 ("Improving Awareness of Running Code: The
>>>>>>>>> Implementation Status Section"), may we remove the Implementation
>>>>>>>>> Status section? -->
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Auth: This section seems correct, we are not sure why it should be removed. We think we should keep it, or keep it wiyh a preface that says  "At the time of publication..."
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 10) <!--[rfced] Informative References: The titles of the following references don't match the information found at the provided URLs. Please review and let us know if/how these references should be updated. Note that if the Implementation Status section is removed, this question becomes moot.
>>>>>>>>> Original:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> [VPP_SRC] "VPP Source",
>>>>>>>>> <https://gerrit.fd.io/r/c/vpp/+/21948>
>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Auth: The link goes to a page titled "ip: HBH MTU recording for IPv6.” That seems correct.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> [WIRESHARK]
>>>>>>>>> "Wireshark Network Protocol Analyzer",
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> <https://www.wireshark.org>
>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Auth: This seems correct.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> [VPP_SRC] "vpp", commit 21948, ip: HBH MTU recording for IPv6,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> <https://gerrit.fd.io/r/q/project:vpp>
>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Auth: That seems OK.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 11) <!--[rfced] Terminology
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> a) Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be
>>>>>>>>> used inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know
>>>>>>>>> if/how they may be made consistent.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Minimum Path MTU (8 instances) vs. minimum Path MTU (2 instances)
>>>>>>>>> Option (62 instances) vs. option (106 instances)
>>>>>>>>> Option Data (9 instances) vs. option data (2 instances)
>>>>>>>>> Reported MTU (1 instance) vs. reported MTU (1 instances)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> b) For consistency, should parentheses be used in instances that label sizes?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> For example: size (d') vs. size d' -->
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Auth: ??? Bob
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Auth: We have a small preference for the Caps version. For example "Minimum Path MTU”.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Auth: We think “ size d’ “ is better without brackets.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> When making this change please keep alignment with the end of each line in the diagram.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 12) <!--[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. For example, please consider whether "black-holing" should be updated to "an infinite loop".
>>>>>>>> Auth:
>>>>>>>> “black-holing” is a term commonly used in code and papers to refre to a "black hole" effect, as in astronomy. It is not the same as “an infinite loop”, and does not imply anything predjudicial about the word "black" only that no light is emitted from a black hole. The term is used extensivly in software and discussion and is defined in RFC8899.
>>>>>>>> OLD:
>>>>>>>> Increasing the PMTU can result in black-holing (see Section 1.1 of [RFC8899])...
>>>>>>>> NEW:
>>>>>>>> Increasing the PMTU can result in a path silently dropping packets (described as a black hole in [RFC8899])...
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> RFC Editor/ap/jm
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 7/14/22 9:58 AM,
>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Updated 2022/07/14
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 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/rfc9268.xml
>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268.html
>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268.pdf
>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268.txt
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Diff file of the text:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268-diff.html
>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268-rfcdiff.html
>>>>>>>>> (side by side)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Diff of the XML:
>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268-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/rfc9268.original.v2v3.xml
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates only:
>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268.form.xml
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Tracking progress
>>>>>>>>> -----------------
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9268
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> RFC Editor
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> RFC9268 (draft-ietf-6man-mtu-option-15)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Title : IPv6 Minimum Path MTU Hop-by-Hop Option
>>>>>>>>> Author(s) : B. Hinden, G. Fairhurst
>>>>>>>>> WG Chair(s) : Bob Hinden, Ole Trøan, Jen Linkova
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Area Director(s) : Erik Kline, Éric Vyncke
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Please let us know how you plan to proceed.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Gorry & Bob
>> 
>