Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9322 <draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-10> for your review

[Tal Mizrahi <[e-mail]>]

Dear RFC Editor team,

Many thanks for your work on this document.
I approve.

Please see my replies below, marked by [TM].

Cheers,
Tal.


On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 11:23 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] FYI - we have updated the Mickey's organization
>      information in the header for brevity.  Please let us know any
>      objections. -->
>
>
> 2) <!--[rfced] Please review our update to lowercase "loopback" in the following text to ensure that this does not change your intended meaning.
>
> Original:
>
> Similar techniques can be applied by an IOAM encapsulating node to
> apply Loopback to a subset of the forwarded traffic.
>
> Current:
> Similar techniques can be applied by an IOAM encapsulating node to
> apply loopback to a subset of the forwarded traffic.
> -->

[TM] Makes sense.

>
>
> 3) <!--[rfced] Should "transit packet" be plural in this sentence to create
>      parallel structure?
>
> Original:
> An attacker that sets this flag, either in synthetic packets or
> transit packet, can potentially cause an amplification...
>
> Perhaps:
> An attacker that sets this flag, either in synthetic packets or
> transit packets, can potentially cause an amplification...-->
>

[TM] Yes, please go ahead and apply this change.


>
> 4)   <!--[rfced] Throughout the document, we used the following capping
>        schemes to match use in RFC 9197. Please let us know any
>        objections.
>
> IOAM data fields to IOAM-Data-Fields
> IOAM domain(s) to IOAM-Domain(s)
>

[TM] Makes sense.

> -->
>
>
> Thank you.
>
> RFC Editor/mc/mf
>
> *****IMPORTANT*****
>
> Updated 2022/09/21
>
> 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/rfc9322.xml
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9322.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9322.pdf
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9322.txt
>
> Diff file of the text:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9322-diff.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9322-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>
> Diff of the XML:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9322-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/rfc9322.original.v2v3.xml
>
> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
> only:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9322.form.xml
>
>
> Tracking progress
> -----------------
>
> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9322
>
> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>
> Thank you for your cooperation,
>
> RFC Editor
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC9322 (draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-10)
>
> Title            : In-situ OAM Loopback and Active Flags
> Author(s)        : T. Mizrahi, F. Brockners, S. Bhandari, B. Gafni, M. Spiegel
> WG Chair(s)      : Marcus Ihlar, Tommy Pauly
> Area Director(s) : Martin Duke, Zaheduzzaman Sarker
>
>