Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9508 <draft-irtf-icnrg-icnping-12> for your review

[Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>]

Dear Spyros,

We have updated this document per your notes below.

The latest files are posted here.  Please refresh your browser:

   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508.txt
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508.xml
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508-rfcdiff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508-auth48diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508-lastdiff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508-lastrfcdiff.html

   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508-xmldiff1.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508-xmldiff2.html

Thank you!

RFC Editor/lb

> On Feb 6, 2024, at 9:42 AM, Spyros Mastorakis <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Dear Lynne,
> 
> Thank you for your email. Overall, the ping document looks good to us. 
> 
> We have only one small comment about inserting the final RFC number (RFC9531) for path steering in the ping RFC before publishing it. In other words, we would like to replace “RFCYYYY” with “RFC9531”. 
> 
> I believe “RFCYYYY” appears 5 times in sections 3, 4, and 5 of the document and another 3 times in the references (section 10.2). 
> 
> Thank you,
> Spyros
> 
>> On Feb 6, 2024, at 11:20 AM, Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear authors,
>> 
>> As requested by Dave (email of 2 Feb., re. RFC-to-be 9531), please review this document, and let us know if further changes are needed:
>> 
>> Note:  I have not followed the progress of RFC-to-be 9531 and will rely on you to let me know whether or not updates are needed as related to terminology or other information in RFCs 9507, 9508, and 9531.
>> 
>> The latest files are posted here.  Please refresh your browser:
>> 
>>  https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508.txt&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707841225000000&usg=AOvVaw27A_FkdM-TXGSOzmxggOyq
>>  https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508.pdf&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707841225000000&usg=AOvVaw3rvyNHiYO-Cjk3vp5lxwiN
>>  https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707841225000000&usg=AOvVaw0Ys8Gyzuywedc9y-MZAv8L
>>  https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508.xml&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707841225000000&usg=AOvVaw0j_TxOIk90pHk8m-1ruCWA
>>  https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508-diff.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707841225000000&usg=AOvVaw2G2rGLFQjyoW0wwcLSNT4S
>>  https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508-rfcdiff.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707841225000000&usg=AOvVaw1i-QVmEUeQVJZPgqyQGujC
>>  https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508-auth48diff.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707841225000000&usg=AOvVaw3EQgTW1bgW76kaGTz2jmOi
>>  https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508-lastdiff.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707841225000000&usg=AOvVaw2br9FdAn5TC6AclGV9Vv3g
>>  https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508-lastrfcdiff.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707841225000000&usg=AOvVaw2VCy-lXH-oYiZawbxNuzJS
>> 
>>  https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508-xmldiff1.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707841225000000&usg=AOvVaw0VzZJFYILUFVxcbicgYwRb
>>  https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508-xmldiff2.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707841225000000&usg=AOvVaw1RM1GiK8g1DCvD2zrFekVD
>> 
>> Thank you!
>> 
>> RFC Editor/lb
>> 
>>> On Nov 15, 2023, at 9:35 AM, Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi, Dave.
>>> 
>>> We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page:
>>> 
>>> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9508&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707841225000000&usg=AOvVaw2Qd5D8H6mIA2EpvabDxQXr
>>> 
>>> When draft-irtf-icnrg-pathsteering is edited, if we have additional terminology questions that apply to all three documents, we will check in with you at that time.
>>> 
>>> Again, many thanks for your prompt help with this document and RFC-to-be 9507!
>>> 
>>> RFC Editor/lb
>>> 
>>>> On Nov 15, 2023, at 4:06 AM, David R. Oran <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On 14 Nov 2023, at 15:33, Lynne Bartholomew wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi, Dave.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Per email just sent to Dirk and this list, this document, RFC 9507, and draft-irtf-icnrg-pathsteering will all be published together.  draft-irtf-icnrg-pathsteering is now listed as "RFC YYYY" pending a number assignment.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regarding this item:
>>>>>> I think the generic term in running text ought to stay lowercase; ditto for traceroute. Reference to the particular messages in the protocol should be capitalized. Does that make sense?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Apologies, but among the 28 instances of lowercase "ping" that we find, we cannot tell which of them might be considered messages.  Please let us know if any of the remaining instances of "ping" should be "Ping".
>>>>> 
>>>> I proofread the latest version (from the links below) and can confirmed that the capitalization is as we wanted in all cases.
>>>> 
>>>> So, I think we’re good to go on this.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> 
>>>>> The latest files are posted here.  Please refresh your browser:
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508.txt&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707841225000000&usg=AOvVaw27A_FkdM-TXGSOzmxggOyq
>>>>> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508.pdf&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707841225000000&usg=AOvVaw3rvyNHiYO-Cjk3vp5lxwiN
>>>>> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707841225000000&usg=AOvVaw0Ys8Gyzuywedc9y-MZAv8L
>>>>> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508.xml&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707841225000000&usg=AOvVaw0j_TxOIk90pHk8m-1ruCWA
>>>>> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508-diff.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707841225000000&usg=AOvVaw2G2rGLFQjyoW0wwcLSNT4S
>>>>> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508-rfcdiff.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707841225000000&usg=AOvVaw1i-QVmEUeQVJZPgqyQGujC
>>>>> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508-auth48diff.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707841225000000&usg=AOvVaw3EQgTW1bgW76kaGTz2jmOi
>>>>> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508-lastdiff.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707841225000000&usg=AOvVaw2br9FdAn5TC6AclGV9Vv3g
>>>>> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508-lastrfcdiff.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707841225000000&usg=AOvVaw2VCy-lXH-oYiZawbxNuzJS
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508-xmldiff1.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707841225000000&usg=AOvVaw0VzZJFYILUFVxcbicgYwRb
>>>>> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508-xmldiff2.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707841225000000&usg=AOvVaw1RM1GiK8g1DCvD2zrFekVD
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks again for your attentiveness to this document and RFC 9507!
>>>>> 
>>>>> RFC Editor/lb
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Nov 14, 2023, at 5:02 AM, David R. Oran <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 13 Nov 2023, at 20:23, Lynne Bartholomew wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Getting there! …more inline
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Apologies; forgot the closing parenthesis here:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Regarding our question 13) and your reply ("... in the Ping Echo reply and included in the Ping Echo request ...: should be
>>>>>>> Regarding our question 13) and your reply ("... in the Ping Echo reply and included in the Ping Echo request ...):
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I’ll answer this inline below.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Nov 13, 2023, at 4:59 PM, Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi, Dave.  Thank you for your quick reply and kind words re. this document as well!
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> We asked the Document Shepherd about whether or not to wait for draft-irtf-icnrg-pathsteering-07 when we emailed re. RFC-to-be 9507 and will wait for his reply.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dirk thinks we should publish them all together so, let’s go that way if it doesn’t make extra work for you. I’ll try to turn comments on pathsteering around quickly once you get to it in the queue,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Please note that we have a new question for this document (9508):
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> <!-- [rfced] Section 9:  FYI, because this document creates the "CCNx
>>>>>>>> Echo Reply Codes" registry, we added a sentence regarding the registration
>>>>>>>> procedure.  Please let us know any objections.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Excellent. No objection.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Currently:
>>>>>>>> IANA has created a new registry called "CCNx Echo Reply Codes".  The
>>>>>>>> registration procedure is Specification Required [RFC8126]. -->
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> We have some follow-up questions for you:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Regarding our question 13) and your reply ("... in the Ping Echo reply and included in the Ping Echo request ...":  Please review the usage of lowercase "ping" in this document (36 instances, by our current count).  Should all instances of "ping" be changed to "Ping"?  RFC-to-be 9507 currently has "... new tools analogous to ping and traceroute".
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think the generic term in running text ought to stay lowercase; ditto for traceroute. Reference to the particular messages in the protocol should be capitalized. Does that make sense?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I went through quickly and found the following inconsistency inmultiple places:
>>>>>> s/ping Echo Requests/Ping Echo Requests/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> = = = = =
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Regarding our question 19) and your reply:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The [NDNTLV] specification doesn’t say anything about what these TLVs are - it doesn’t use either "element" or "selector". The safest thing is to say "MustBeFresh TLV".
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> It appears that we should make this update in RFC-to-be 9507 as well.  Please confirm.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yes, please.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> = = = = =
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Regarding these items from our question 28)b):
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Echo reply (Section 2) / Echo Reply / echo reply
>>>>>>>>>> Echo Request / echo request
>>>>>>>>>> (We see that RFC-to-be 9507 (draft-irtf-icnrg-icntraceroute-11)
>>>>>>>>>> uses "Echo Request".)
>>>>>>>>> Use "Echo Request".
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> We also used "Echo Reply".  Please let us know any concerns.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yes. Good catch. Correct.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Capitalize per [NDNTLV], so “NDN Data Packet” (same as I suggested for icntraceroute)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> We updated accordingly, but we see "NDN Data packet" on <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://docs.named-data.net/NDN-packet-spec/current/data.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707841225000000&usg=AOvVaw0khR7u7Ipo1N6RUcAwR6Ry> .  Please confirm that "Packet" is as desired for this document.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Well, seems [NDNTLV] is itself inconsistent. In titles it says “Data Packet” but in running text it says “Data packet”. When I checked [NDNTLV] I only looked at the titles. I don’t particularly care, so I defer to your judgement - perhaps given we mention these in running text as well it ought to follow the same convention and use “Data packet”.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> = = = = =
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The updated XML and output files are posted here.  Please refresh your browser to view the latest:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508.txt&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707841225000000&usg=AOvVaw27A_FkdM-TXGSOzmxggOyq
>>>>>>>> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508.pdf&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707841225000000&usg=AOvVaw3rvyNHiYO-Cjk3vp5lxwiN
>>>>>>>> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707841225000000&usg=AOvVaw0Ys8Gyzuywedc9y-MZAv8L
>>>>>>>> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508.xml&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707841225000000&usg=AOvVaw0j_TxOIk90pHk8m-1ruCWA
>>>>>>>> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508-diff.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707841225000000&usg=AOvVaw2G2rGLFQjyoW0wwcLSNT4S
>>>>>>>> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508-rfcdiff.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707841225000000&usg=AOvVaw1i-QVmEUeQVJZPgqyQGujC
>>>>>>>> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508-auth48diff.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707841225000000&usg=AOvVaw3EQgTW1bgW76kaGTz2jmOi
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508-xmldiff1.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707841225000000&usg=AOvVaw0VzZJFYILUFVxcbicgYwRb
>>>>>>>> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9508-xmldiff2.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707841225000000&usg=AOvVaw1RM1GiK8g1DCvD2zrFekVD
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Please review our updates carefully, and let us know if anything is incorrect.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks again!
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> RFC Editor/lb
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [I snipped out the earlier stuff to keep the replies reasonable length]
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 11, 2023, at 6:59 AM, David R. Oran <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [SNIP]
>>>>>> DaveO
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>