Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9542 <draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis-11> for your review

[[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] FYI, because this document obsoletes RFC 7042,
it has been assigned BCP 141 (the same BCP number as RFC 7042). 
If you prefer otherwise, please let us know.
-->


2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the
title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->


3) <!--[rfced] To avoid this hyphenation, may we update "IEEE
802-related" as follows?

Original:
   Some IETF protocols use Ethernet or other IEEE 802-related
   communication frame formats and parameters [IEEE802].
   ...
   IEEE Std 802 describes assignment procedures and policies for IEEE
   802-related identifiers [IEEE802_OandA].

Perhaps:
   Some IETF protocols use Ethernet or other
   communication frame formats and parameters related to IEEE 802 [IEEE802].
   ...
   IEEE Std 802 describes assignment procedures and policies for
   identifiers related to IEEE 802 [IEEE802_OandA].
-->   


4) <!--[rfced] Section 1.1: We suggest removing the quotation marks from this 
section, as they are not typically used in this manner. (Although they are
used in RFC 7042, this is an opportunity to improve the document.) Please 
let us know if this change is acceptable.

Current:
   "AFN"       Address Family Number [RFC4760].

   "CBOR"      Concise Binary Object Representation [RFC8949].

   "CFM"       Connectivity Fault Management [RFC7319].

   [...]

Suggested:
   AFN       Address Family Number [RFC4760].

   CBOR      Concise Binary Object Representation [RFC8949].

   CFM       Connectivity Fault Management [RFC7319].

   [...]
-->


5) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in this document (for
example, the text marked "Historical Note" or "NOTE") should be in the <aside>
element. It is defined as "a container for content that is semantically
less important or tangential to the content that surrounds it"
(https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside).
-->


6) <!--[rfced] Would it be accurate for these instances of "2023" 
to be updated to "2024"? It seems the year of publication would
make more sense here.

Original:
   As of 2023 there
   are three lengths of prefixes assigned, as shown in the table below;
   however, some prefix bits can have special meaning as shown in
   Figure 1.
   ...
   As of 2023, 4 out of these 256 values have been
   assigned. 
   ...
   As of 2023, 1 out of these 256 values has been
   assigned.
   ...
   As of 2023, 4 out of these 256
   values have been assigned.
   ...
   As of 2023, 1 out of these 256 values has been
   assigned.  
-->


7) <!--[rfced] We see that "universal/local" and "Local/Global" are both used
to describe the X bit. Should this be made consistent?

Original:
   X bit  - This bit is also called the "universal/local" bit
   ...
   When so used, the EUI-64 is modified by
   inverting the X (Local/Global) bit to form an IETF "Modified EUI-64
   identifier".  
-->


8) <!--[rfced] As the plus sign could indicate addition, may we replace it
with "and"?

Original:
   Y+Z bits  - These two bits have no special meaning if the X bit is
      zero.

Perhaps:
   Y and Z bits -  These two bits have no special meaning if the X bit is
      zero.  
-->   


9) <!--[rfced] Since two instances of "NOTE" are listed directly after this
definition, should "see NOTE below" be more specific?

Original:
   Standard Assigned -  MAC addresses in this quadrant are called
      Standard Assigned Identifiers (SAIs).  An SAI is assigned by a
      protocol specified in an IEEE 802 standard, for example
      [IEEE802.1CQ] (but see NOTE below).

         NOTE: While the SLAP has MAC addresses assigned through a local
         protocol in the SAI quadrant and assigned by a protocol
         specified in an IEEE 802 standard, the SLAP is optional.  Local
         network administrators may use the IETF protocol provisions in
         [RFC8947] and [RFC8948] which support assignment of a MAC
         address in the local MAC address space using DHCPv6 [RFC8415]
         or other protocol methods.

      NOTE: There isn't any automated way to determine if or to what
      extent a local network is configured for and/or operating
      according to SLAP.
-->      


10) <!--[rfced] Regarding Section 2.2.2:

a) Would it be acceptable to replace this list with a table that 
exactly matches the IANA registry 
(as shown in Table 3 of https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9542-table.txt)?
The rationale is so that the addresses and usage match the registry
and because it is referred to as "[t]he following table".

b) "EF" has been changed to "FC" to match the IANA registry as follows.
Please let us know if this is not correct. 

Original:
   02-00-5E-10-00-00-01-00 to 02-00-5E-EF-FF-FF-FF-FF  available for
      assignment

Current:
   02-00-5E-10-00-00-01-00 to 02-00-5E-FC-FF-FF-FF-FF  available for
      assignment

c) If you choose the table, we note the "02-00-5E" is not included, so
would you like to add text to the preceding paragraph in order to note that? 
Perhaps:

  These values are prefixed with with 02-00-5E to form unicast 
  modified EUI-64 addresses.
-->


11) <!--[rfced] To clarify "8 bits length", may we update this sentence as
follows?

Original:
   Should some other multiple of 8 bits length MAC
   addresses be used in the future, such as a 128-bit (16 octet) MAC
   address, the TBD1 tag will be used.

Perhaps:
   Should some other multiple of 8 bits be used in the future
   for the length of MAC addresses, such as a 128-bit (16-octet) MAC
   address, the 48 tag will be used.
-->   


12) <!--[rfced] As the protocol identifier uses "AA-AA", should the text
be updated to reflect this?

Original:
      xx-xx-AA-AA-03-yy-yy-yy-zz-zz

   where xx-xx is the frame length and, as above, must be small enough
   not to be confused with an EtherType; "AA" is the LSAP that indicates
   this use and is sometimes referred to as the SNAP Service Access
   Point (SNAP SAP);

Perhaps:
      xx-xx-AA-AA-03-yy-yy-yy-zz-zz

   where xx-xx is the frame length and, as above, must be small enough
   not to be confused with an EtherType; "AA-AA" is the LSAP that indicates
   this use and is sometimes referred to as the SNAP Service Access
   Point (SNAP SAP);
-->


13) <!--[rfced] Should instances of "LLC control" be updated to read simply "LLC"
to avoid redundancy (if expanded, "LLC protocol" would read as "Logical Link
Control control"). Please review and let us know if any updates are needed.

Original:
   ..."03" is the LLC control octet indicating datagram
   service; yy-yy-yy is an OUI; and zz-zz is a protocol number, under
   that OUI, assigned by the OUI owner.  The five-octet length for such
   OUI-based protocol identifiers results, with the LLC control octet
   ("0x03"), in the preservation of 16-bit alignment.
--> 


14) <!--[rfced] May we clarify "it" in the list item to be "the assignment"? 

Original:
   New assignments of protocol numbers
   (qq-qq) under the IANA OUI must meet the following requirements:
   ...
   *  it must be documented in an Internet-Draft or RFC, and
-->   


15) <!--[rfced] We are having some difficulty parsing this sentence.
How should it be updated for clarity?

Original:
   (Either that EtherType can be used directly or,
   in the LSAPs case, using the SNAP SAP and putting an all-zeros
   "OUI" before the EtherType as described above.)

Perhaps (where each hyphen would be two hyphens):

   (That EtherType can be used directly, or
   - in the LSAPs case - it can be used with the SNAP SAP by putting
   an all-zero "OUI" before the EtherType as described above.)
-->      


16) <!--[rfced] Does "is felt to be large enough" mean "is considered to 
be large enough" or "is believed to be large enough"? Would it be more
clear as one of those?

Original:
   While finite, the universe of MAC code points from which Expert-
   judged assignments will be made is felt to be large enough that the
   requirements given in this document and the Experts' good judgment
   are sufficient guidance.  
-->


17) <!--[rfced] This document and the IANA registry do not match for
the following description ("24-bit OUI" vs. "OUI"). Which one is correct?

This document:
   | 24-bit OUI | 16391   |

vs. IANA registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers)::
16391 	OUI

-->


18) <!--[rfced] Section 5.7: Regarding the actual notes on the IANA registries,
"IANA Unicast 48-bit MAC Addresses" mentions Section 2.1.5 and
"IANA Multicast 48-bit MAC Addresses" mentions Section 2.1.4.

For the latter, is 2.1.4 correct?
This document indicates "Section 2.1.5" for both:
  
   The Notes for the "IANA Unicast 48-bit MAC Addresses" registry and
   for the "IANA Multicast 48-bit MAC Addresses" registry are changed to
   the following:

   |  These values are prefixed with 00-00-5E.  See Section 2.1.5 of RFC
   |  9542.
-->


19) <!-- [rfced] Would you like the references to be alphabetized
or left in their current order?
-->


20) <!--[rfced] As this document informatively references RFC 5798, would you like 
to delay publishing in order to be published at the same time as
draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-18, which is also currently in the RFC Editor queue?
-->


21) <!--[rfced] We note that the following term is used inconsistently
throughout the document. Please review and let us know how it may be
made consistent.

'CF Series' vs. CF Series vs. "CF" series
-->


22) <!-- [rfced] FYI, we have added expansions for the following abbreviations
per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each
expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness.

Network Layer Protocol Identifier (NLPID)
-->


23) <!-- [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.  --> </back>


Thank you.

RFC Editor/ap/ar


On Apr 4, 2024, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2024/04/04

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/rfc9542.xml
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9542.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9542.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9542.txt

Diff file of the text:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9542-diff.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9542-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9542-xmldiff1.html


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9542

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9542 (draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis-11)

Title            : IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE 802 Parameters
Author(s)        : D. Eastlake, J. Abley, Y. Li
WG Chair(s)      : Juan-Carlos Zúñiga, Wassim Haddad

Area Director(s) : Erik Kline, Éric Vyncke