Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9452 <draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-13> 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] Please note that the title of the document has been updated 
as follows ("In-situ" to "In Situ"):

Original:
Network Service Header (NSH) Encapsulation for In-situ OAM (IOAM) Data

Current:
Network Service Header (NSH) Encapsulation for In Situ OAM (IOAM) Data
-->


2) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble understanding "by means of 
configuration."  Does the suggested text convey the intended meaning?  
Also, does "encapsulating/decapsulating" mean "encapsulating and 
decapsulating" or "encapsulating or decapsulating"?

Original:
   In an administrative domain where IOAM is used,
   insertion of the IOAM header in NSH is enabled at the NSH tunnel
   endpoints, which also serve as IOAM encapsulating/decapsulating nodes
   by means of configuration.

Perhaps: 
   In an administrative domain where IOAM is used,
   insertion of the IOAM header in NSH is enabled at the NSH tunnel
   endpoints, which are also configured to serve as IOAM encapsulating and 
   decapsulating nodes. 
-->


3) <!-- [rfced] This text appears in and points to Section 3.  May we 
delete "Section 3"?  Please review. 

Original:
   The operator MUST ensure that SFC-aware
   nodes along the Service Function Path support IOAM, otherwise packets
   might be dropped (see Section 3 further below, as well as [RFC8300]
   Section 2.2).

Perhaps:
   The operator MUST ensure that SFC-aware
   nodes along the Service Function Path support IOAM; otherwise, packets
   might be dropped (see more below, as well as Section 2.2 of [RFC8300]).
-->


4) <!-- [rfced] Would it be helpful to expand MD for the reader?  Perhaps it could be added to list of abbreviations introduced in Section 2?

-->


5) <!-- [rfced] For readability, we have updated the text as follows.  Please let us know if any corrections are needed. 

Original:
   Per Section 2.2 of [RFC8300], packets with Next Protocol values not
   supported SHOULD be silently dropped by default. 

Current:
   Per Section 2.2 of [RFC8300], packets with unsupported Next Protocol values 
   SHOULD be silently dropped by default. 
-->


6) <!-- [rfced] For readability, may we update the text as follows?

Original:
   IOAM is considered a "per domain" feature, where the operator decides
   on leveraging and configuring IOAM according to the operator's needs.

Suggested: 
   IOAM is considered a "per domain" feature, where the operator decides
   how to leverage and configure IOAM according to the operator's needs.
-->


7) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, may we update the text as follows?  Please let us know if any corrections are needed.  

Original:
   Hardware and software friendly implementation: Hardware forwarders
   benefit from an encapsulation that minimizes iterative look-ups of
   fields within the packet: Any operation which looks up the value of a
   field within the packet, based on which another lookup is performed,
   consumes additional gates and time in an implementation - both of
   which are desired to be kept to a minimum.

Current: 
   Hardware- and software-friendly implementation: Hardware forwarders
   benefit from an encapsulation that minimizes iterative lookups of
   fields within the packet. Any operation that looks up the value of a
   field within the packet, based on which another lookup is performed,
   consumes additional gates and time in an implementation, both of
   which should be kept to a minimum.
-->


8) <!-- [rfced] Terminology

a) We note that Figure 1 contains “IOAM Option and Optional Data Space”, 
while the text defines “IOAM Option and Data Space”. Please review and let 
us know if these should be consistent. 


b) These terms may be used inconsistently.  Please review and let us know 
if the forms on the right (on the right of the arrow) should be used 
consistently, or if any other updates are needed. 

IOAM-Data-fields & IOAM data fields -> IOAM-Data-Fields
IOAM-Option-Types -> IOAM Option-Type
-->


9) <!-- [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.

Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should 
still be reviewed as a best practice.
-->


Thank you.

RFC Editor


On Jul 31, 2023, at 7:53 PM, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2023/07/31

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/rfc9452.xml
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9452.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9452.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9452.txt

Diff file of the text:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9452-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9452-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9452-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/rfc9452.original.v2v3.xml 

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
only: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9452.form.xml


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

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9452

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9452 (draft-ietf-sfc-ioam-nsh-13)

Title            : Network Service Header (NSH) Encapsulation for In-situ OAM (IOAM) Data
Author(s)        : F. Brockners, Ed., S. Bhandari, Ed.
WG Chair(s)      : Joel M. Halpern, Jim Guichard

Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston