Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9516 <draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam-28> for your review

[Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>]

Hi Bhumip,

Your approval has been noted on the AUTH48 status page:
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9516

We will await approvals from Ting and Gyan.

Thank you,
RFC Editor/ap

> On Nov 11, 2023, at 12:19 PM, B. Khasnabish <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you Alanna. Yes, agree with the updates/changes. 
> 
> Once again, many Thanks in advance. 
> 
> Best Regards, 
> 
> Bhumip   
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Bhumip Khasnabish | [phone] (m)
> [e-mail]
> 
> ::
> 
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 4:49 PM Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Greetings,
> 
> We do not believe we have heard from you regarding this document's readiness for publication.  Please review our previous messages describing the AUTH48 process and containing any document-specific questions we may have had.
> 
> We will wait to hear from you before continuing with the publication process.
> 
> The AUTH48 status page for this document is located here:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9516
> 
> Thank you,
> RFC Editor/ap
> 
> 
> > On Oct 30, 2023, at 3:56 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] Please note the title of the document has been updated as 
> > follows. Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 
> > ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review.
> > 
> > Original:
> >   Active OAM for Service Function Chaining (SFC)
> > 
> > Current:
> >   Active Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) for Service 
> >   Function Chaining (SFC)
> > -->
> > 
> > 
> > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the 
> > title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
> > 
> > 
> > 3) <!--[rfced] We do not see "Performance Monitoring OAM" mentioned in RFC 
> > 8924.  Please let us know if/how this citation should be updated.
> > 
> > Additionally, "as a requirement" is unclear. May we update the sentence as
> > follows?
> > 
> > Original:
> >   Note that
> >   Performance Monitoring OAM, as mentioned in [RFC8924], as a
> >   requirement, is not satisfied by this document and is out of scope.
> > 
> > Perhaps:
> >   Note that
> >   Performance Monitoring OAM, as required by [RFC8924],
> >   is not satisfied by this document and is out of scope.
> > -->
> > 
> > 
> > 4) <!--[rfced] Should the terms in Section 2.2 be listed in alphabetical 
> > order? -->
> > 
> > 
> > 5) <!-- [rfced] Please confirm that references to Section 6.5.4 for SFF 
> > traceroute are correct, as we don't see mention of SFF or Service Function 
> > Forwarders in that section.  Perhaps "SFF traceroute" should be "SFP 
> > tracing"?  Please let us know if any updates are neeeded.
> > 
> > Original:
> >   *  REQ#2: Continuity monitoring via the SFF traceroute defined in
> >      Section 6.5.4 ("Tracing an SFP ").
> > 
> >   *  REQ#4: Connectivity verification via the SFF traceroute
> >      (Section 6.5.4).
> > -->
> > 
> > 
> > 6) <!-- [rfced] We have updated the following 2 instances of "Active SFC 
> > OAM" to "SFC Active OAM" to match the description in the IANA registry.  
> > Please let us know if any updates are needed. 
> > 
> > Original:
> >   To identify the active SFC
> >   OAM message, the "Next Protocol" field MUST be set to Active SFC OAM
> >   (TBA1) (Section 10.1). ... A case when the O bit is clear and the
> >   "Next Protocol" field value is set to Active SFC OAM (TBA1) is
> >   considered an erroneous combination.
> > 
> > We note that Figure 2 includes a "SFC Active OAM Control Packet" field, but 
> > the section title is "Active SFC OAM Header" - should the section title be 
> > SFC Active OAM Header? 
> > 
> > Original: 
> >   5.  Active SFC OAM Header
> > 
> > Perhaps: 
> >   5.  SFC Active OAM Header
> > 
> > 
> > In addition, the term appears inconsistently throughout the document. 
> > Please review and let us know how/if these may be updated for consistency. 
> > 
> > active SFC OAM vs Active SFC OAM (capitalization)
> > SFC active OAM vs SFC Active OAM (capitalization)
> > active SFC OAM vs SFC active OAM (location of "active")
> > -->
> > 
> > 
> > 7) <!--[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.
> > -->
> > 
> > 
> > 8) <!--[rfced] In Section 6.4.1, should "Errored TLVs Type" be "Errored 
> > TLVs" to match the field in Figure 6?
> > 
> > Original:
> >   The Errored TLVs Type <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be set to 2 (Section 10.4).
> > 
> > Perhaps:
> >   Errored TLVs - <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be set to 2 (Section 10.4).
> > -->
> > 
> > 
> > 9) <!--[rfced] We are having some trouble parsing "information on the 
> > actual path the CVReq packet has traveled". Is this meant to described the 
> > information that is collected?
> > 
> > Original:
> >   As a result, the ingress SFF collects information about all traversed
> >   SFFs and SFs, information on the actual path the CVReq packet has
> >   traveled.
> > 
> > Perhaps:
> >   As a result, the ingress SFF collects information about all traversed
> >   SFFs and SFs, i.e., information on the actual path the CVReq packet has
> >   traveled.  
> > -->
> > 
> > 
> > 10) <!--[rfced] There are no definitions for the "Length" and "SF 
> > Information Sub-TLV" fields in Figure 9. Should ones be added? If so, 
> > please provide text.
> > -->    
> > 
> > 
> > 11) <!--[rfced] In Section 6.6.2, should "SF sub-TLV Type" be "SF Sub-TLV"
> > to match the field in Figure 10?
> > 
> > Original:
> >   SF sub-TLV Type: one-octet long field.  The value is (5)
> >      (Section 10.4).
> > 
> > Perhaps:
> >   SF Sub-TLV : one-octet field.  The value is (5) (Section 10.4).
> > -->      
> > 
> > 
> > 12) <!--[rfced] To clarify, does "their" refer to the "SF ID Type"? If so,
> > may we update "their" to "its"?
> > 
> > Original:
> >   For this case, the SF ID Type,
> >   which must be the same for all of these SFs, appears once but all of
> >   their SF Identifiers will appear concatenated in the SF Identifier
> >   area of the Sub-TLV (see Figure 10).
> > 
> > Perhaps:
> >   For this case, the SF ID Type,
> >   which must be the same for all of these SFs, appears once but all of
> >   its SF Identifiers will appear concatenated in the SF Identifier
> >   area of the sub-TLV (see Figure 10).
> > -->
> > 
> > 
> > 13) <!-- [rfced] Should the section title and registry title be plural 
> > (i.e., s/Type/Types)? 
> > 
> > Perhaps:
> >   SFC Active OAM Message Types
> > -->
> > 
> > 
> > 14) <!-- [rfced] The IETF Review range has been updated to specify 0-31, to 
> > match what appears in the IANA registry.  See https://www.iana.org/assignments/sfc-active-oam/sfc-active-oam.xhtml#sfc-active-oam.
> > 
> > Original: 
> > 2-31 IETF Review
> > -->
> > 
> > 
> > 15) <!-- [rfced] May we update instances of "Echo Request/Echo Reply" to be 
> > "Echo Request/Reply" throughout the document, including the IANA-related 
> > text, to align with text in Section 2? 
> > 
> > From Section 2: 
> >   In this document, "Echo Request/Reply" and "SFC Echo                    
> >   Request/Reply" are used interchangeably.
> > 
> > For example, this is the current IANA-related text from Table 2: 
> >   | 1      | SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply | RFC 9516  |
> > 
> > Perhaps: 
> >   | 1      | SFC Echo Request/Reply | RFC 9516  |
> > -->
> > 
> > 
> > 16) <!-- [rfced] Note that these two rows have been combined to match what 
> > appears in the IANA registry: 
> > 
> > Original:
> >         | 2 - 31 |          Unassigned         | This document |
> >         | 32-62  |          Unassigned         | This document |
> > 
> > Current: 
> >        | 2 - 62 |          Unassigned         |           |
> > -->
> > 
> > 
> > 17) <!-- [rfced] We do not see an "SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply Parameters" 
> > registry within the "Service Function Chaining (SFC) Active Operations, 
> > Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)" registry.  Based on the IANA 
> > actions, we believe the intent is for registries defined in sections 10.3.1 
> > - 10.3.4, 10.4, and 10.5 (in the I-D) to be created within the "Service 
> > Function Chaining (SFC) Active Operations, Administration, and Maintenance 
> > (OAM)" registry - we have updated the text accordingly (including removing 
> > Section 10.3).  Please review the updates carefully and let us know any 
> > objections. 
> > 
> > From IANA: 
> > We've created the following registries and placed them in the "Service 
> > Function Chaining (SFC) Active Operations, Administration, and Maintenance 
> > (OAM)" registry group:  
> > 
> > SFC Active OAM Message Type  
> > SFC Echo Request Flags  
> > SFC Echo Types  
> > SFC Echo Reply Modes  
> > SFC Echo Return Codes  
> > SFC Active OAM TLV Type  
> > SF Identifier Types  
> > 
> > Please see https://www.iana.org/assignments/sfc-active-oam for the list of 
> > registrations and procedures.  
> > -->
> > 
> > 
> > 18) <!-- [rfced] Section 9.2.3. SFC Echo Types
> > 
> > Note that the IETF Review range has been updated to reflect what appears in 
> > the IANA registry.  
> > 
> > The following ranges were commented out in the XML, but they appear in the 
> > IANA registry.  
> > 
> >   240-251    Experimental Use 
> >   252-254    Private Use
> > 
> > We have re-added the ranges to the Assignment Policy, as the ranges appear 
> > in the IANA registry and the table below.  Please review and let us know 
> > whether these ranges are valid or if they should be removed from the IANA 
> > registry.  
> > See <https://www.iana.org/assignments/sfc-active-oam>. 
> > 
> > Note that these rows have been combined to match what appears in the IANA  
> > registry.
> > 
> >     | 5 - 175   |              Unassigned              |         |
> >     | 176 - 239 |              Unassigned              |         |
> > 
> > Current: 
> >     | 5 - 239   |              Unassigned              |         |
> > -->
> > 
> > 
> > 19) <!-- [rfced] Section 9.2.4.  SFC Echo Reply Modes
> > 
> > Similar to what was done for Section 9.2.3, the IETF Review range has been 
> > updated to reflect what appears in the IANA registry.
> > 
> > The following ranges were commented out in the XML, but they appear in the 
> > IANA registry.
> > 
> >   240 - 251   Experimental
> >   252 - 254   Private Use
> > 
> > We have re-added the ranges to the Assignment Policy, as the ranges appear 
> > in the IANA registry and the table below.  Please review and let us know 
> > whether these ranges are valid or if they should be removed from the IANA 
> > registry. 
> > See <https://www.iana.org/assignments/sfc-active-oam>.
> > 
> > Note that these rows have been combined to match what appears in the IANA 
> > registry.
> > 
> >        | 8 -   |             Unassigned             |         |
> >        | 175   |                                    |         |                           
> >        | 176 - |             Unassigned             |         |                           
> >        | 239   |                                    |         |                           
> > 
> > -->
> > 
> > 
> > 20) <!-- [rfced] Section 9.2.5.  SFC Echo Return Codes 
> > 
> > Similar to above, the IETF Review range has been updated to reflect what 
> > appears in the IANA registry.
> > 
> > The following range was commented out in the XML, but it appears in the 
> > IANA registry. 
> > 
> >   252 - 254   Private Use
> > 
> > We have re-added the range to the Assignment Policy, as the range appears 
> > in the IANA registry and the table below.  Please review and let us know 
> > whether the range is valid or if it should be removed from the IANA 
> > registry.
> > See <https://www.iana.org/assignments/sfc-active-oam>.
> > 
> > 
> > Note that these rows have been combined to match what appears in the IANA 
> > registry.
> > 
> >   | 9 -191  |                  Unassigned                 |          |
> >   | 192-251 |                  Unassigned                 |          |
> > -->
> > 
> > 
> > 21) <!-- [rfced]  9.2.6. SFC Active OAM TLV Type 
> > 
> > Should the registry and section title be plural (i.e., s/Type/Types)? 
> > 
> > Note that the IETF Review range has been updated to reflect what appears in 
> > the IANA registry.
> > 
> > The following ranges were commented out in the XML, but they appear in the 
> > IANA registry.  
> >   240 - 251  Experimental
> >   252 - 254   Private Use
> > 
> > We have re-added the ranges to the Assignment Policy, as the ranges appear 
> > in the IANA registry and the table below.  Please review and let us know 
> > whether these ranges are valid or if they should be removed from the IANA 
> > registry. 
> > See <https://www.iana.org/assignments/sfc-active-oam>.
> > 
> > Note that these rows have been combined to match what appears in the IANA
> > registry.
> > 
> >       | 6 - 175   |             Unassigned            |          |
> >       | 176 - 239 |             Unassigned            |          |
> > -->
> > 
> > 
> > 22) <!--[rfced] 9.2.7.  SF Identifier Types 
> > 
> > FYI, as no SF Types registry is mentioned in RFC 9263, we have 
> > removed the citation from the sentence below. 
> > 
> > Original:
> >   IANA is requested to create in the SF Types registry [RFC9263] the
> >   sub-registry as follows:
> > 
> > 
> > Similar to above, the IETF Review range has been updated to reflect what 
> > appears in the IANA registry.
> > 
> > The following range was commented out in the XML, but it appears in the 
> > IANA registry.
> > 
> >   252 - 254   Private Use
> > 
> > We have re-added the range to the Assignment Policy, as the range appears 
> > in the IANA registry and the table below.  Please review and let us know 
> > whether the range is valid or if it should be removed from the IANA 
> > registry.  
> > See <https://www.iana.org/assignments/sfc-active-oam>. 
> > 
> > 
> > Note that these rows have been combined to match what appears in the IANA 
> > registry.
> > 
> >                   | 4 -191  |  Unassigned |          |
> >                   | 192-251 |  Unassigned |          |
> > -->
> > 
> > 
> > 23) <!-- [rfced] Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to 
> > be used inconsistently. May we update to use the latter ?
> > 
> > performance monitoring vs. Performance Monitoring
> > Echo Request/Echo Reply vs. Echo Request/Reply
> > 
> > -->
> > 
> > 
> > 24) <!-- [rfced] Acronyms
> > 
> > a) "SFC" has been expanded as both "Service Function Chain" and "Service
> > Function Chaining" in this document. We have updated to use the latter to 
> > parallel the use in the other documents from Cluster C479 (RFCs 9451 and 
> > 9452). Note that instances of "service function chain" (lowercased) have 
> > been left as is. Please let us know of any objections.
> > 
> > b) FYI - We have expanded the following abbreviation
> > per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each
> > expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness.
> > 
> > Label Switched Path (LSP)
> > -->
> > 
> > 
> > 25) <!-- [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 "sanity" should be updated.
> > -->
> > 
> > 
> > Thank you.
> > 
> > RFC Editor
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Oct 30, 2023, at 1:52 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> > 
> > *****IMPORTANT*****
> > 
> > Updated 2023/10/30
> > 
> > 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/rfc9516.xml
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9516.html
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9516.pdf
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9516.txt
> > 
> > Diff file of the text:
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9516-diff.html
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9516-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
> > 
> > Diff of the XML: 
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9516-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/rfc9516.original.v2v3.xml 
> > 
> > XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
> > only: 
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9516.form.xml
> > 
> > 
> > Tracking progress
> > -----------------
> > 
> > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9516
> > 
> > Please let us know if you have any questions.  
> > 
> > Thank you for your cooperation,
> > 
> > RFC Editor
> > 
> > --------------------------------------
> > RFC9516 (draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam-28)
> > 
> > Title            : Active OAM for Service Function Chaining (SFC)
> > Author(s)        : G. Mirsky, W. Meng, T. Ao, B. Khasnabish, K. Leung, G. Mishra
> > WG Chair(s)      : Joel M. Halpern, Jim Guichard
> > 
> > Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
>