Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9288 <draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering-10> 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 insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in 
the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search.
-->


2) <!--[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.
-->    


3) <!--[rfced] May we update this text as follows to add "IPv6" before
"option type"? Additionally, may we update instances of "IPv6 option
type" to "IPv6 Option Type" per use in RFC 7731?

Original:
   *  Permit this IPv6 EH or IPv6 Option type.

   *  Drop packets containing this IPv6 EH or option type.

   *  Reject packets containing this IPv6 EH or option type (where the
      packet drop is signaled with an ICMPv6 error message).

   *  Rate-limit traffic containing this IPv6 EH or option type.

   *  Ignore this IPv6 EH or option type (as if it was not present) and
      process the packet according the rules for the remaining headers.

Perhaps:
   *  Permit this IPv6 EH or IPv6 Option Type.

   *  Drop packets containing this IPv6 EH or IPv6 Option Type.

   *  Reject packets containing this IPv6 EH or IPv6 Option Type (where the
      packet drop is signaled with an ICMPv6 error message).

   *  Rate-limit traffic containing this IPv6 EH or IPv6 Option Type.

   *  Ignore this IPv6 EH or IPv6 Option Type (as if it was not present), and
      process the packet according the rules for the remaining headers.
-->   


4) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in this document
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://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/xml2rfc-doc.html#name-aside-2).
-->


5) <!--[rfced] Should instances of "CALIPSO option" be updated to
"CALIPSO" to avoid redundancy (if expanded, "CALIPSO option"
would be read as "Common Architecture Label IPv6 Security Option
option". Please review and let us know if any updates are needed.
-->


6) <!--[rfced] The following introductory sentence needs more context
(i.e., why is the Quick-Start functionality being disabled?).
Please let us know if the suggested text is agreeable or if you
prefer otherwise.

Original:
   4.4.9.4.  Operational and Interoperability Impact if Blocked

     The Quick-Start functionality would be disabled, and additional
     delays in TCP's connection establishment (for example) could be
     introduced. (Please see Section 4.7.2 of [RFC4782].) 

Perhaps:
   4.4.9.4.  Operational and Interoperability Impact If Blocked

     If the Quick-Start functionality is blocked, it would be disabled, and 
     additional delays in the TCP's connection establishment, for example, 
     could be introduced; please see Section 4.7.2 of [RFC4782]. 
-->    


7) <!--[rfced] For consistency, we updated "Hop-by-Hop Option headers" to "Hop-by-Hop Options headers" in the following. If that is not correct, please let us know.

Original:
   This option is specified in [RFC7731], and is meant to be included
   only in Hop-by-Hop Option headers.

Perhaps:
   This option is specified in [RFC7731] and is meant to be included
   only in Hop-by-Hop Options headers.
-->


8) <!--[rfced] May we update the latter part of this sentence for clarity as follows? 

Original:
   This option is employed by Identifier-Locator Network Protocol
   for IPv6 (ILNPv6) for providing protection against off-path attacks
   for packets when ILNPv6 is in use, and as a signal during initial
   network-layer session creation that ILNPv6 is proposed for use with
   this network-layer session, rather than classic IPv6.

Perhaps:
   This option is employed by the Identifier-Locator Network Protocol
   for IPv6 (ILNPv6) to provide protection against off-path attacks
   for packets when ILNPv6 is in use and as a signal during initial
   network-layer session creation where ILNPv6 is proposed for use 
   rather than classic IPv6.
-->    


9) <!-- [rfced] Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used 
inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how they
may be made consistent.  

- Hop-by-Hop Options header vs. Hop-by-Hop Options EH 
    [Note: are these terms different or the same?]

- IPv6 packet vs. IPv6 Packet
- Routing Header Type vs. Routing Type
- IP Option vs. IP options (note: capitalized in RFC 6744)
- MPL Option vs. MPL option (note: capitalized in RFC 7731)
- RPL Option vs.  RPL option (note: capitalized in RFC 9008))
-->


10) <!-- [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.  
-->


Thank you.

RFC Editor/ap/kc


On Aug 8, 2022, at 4:47 PM, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2022/08/08

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/rfc9288.xml
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9288.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9288.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9288.txt

Diff file of the text:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9288-diff.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9288-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9288-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/rfc9288.original.v2v3.xml 

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
only: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9288.form.xml


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

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9288

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9288 (draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-eh-filtering-10)

Title            : Recommendations on the Filtering of IPv6 Packets Containing IPv6 Extension Headers at Transit Routers
Author(s)        : F. Gont, W. LIU
WG Chair(s)      : Jen Linkova, Ron Bonica
Area Director(s) : Warren Kumari, Robert Wilton