Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9507 <draft-irtf-icnrg-icntraceroute-11> for your review

[Jim Gibson <[e-mail]>]

Dear Lynne,

I have reviewed this document and I approve of its publication in its
current form.

Thanks,
--Jim

On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 3:08 PM Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Dear authors,
>
> Please note that this document awaits your review (if not done already) as
> well as approval for publication in its current form.
>
> RFC-to-be 9531 (draft-irtf-icnrg-pathsteering) has all approvals and is in
> the AUTH48-DONE state, so after we receive all approvals for this document
> (9507) and RFC-to-be 9508, all three documents can be published.
>
> Please see the AUTH48 status page at <
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9507>.
>
> Thank you!
>
> RFC Editor/lb
>
> > On Feb 7, 2024, at 8:36 AM, Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Dirk,
> >
> > We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page:
> >
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9507
> >
> > Thank you for the quick reply!
> >
> > RFC Editor/lb
> >
> >> On Feb 6, 2024, at 7:55 PM, Dirk Kutscher <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Lynne,
> >>
> >> thanks for taking care of this.
> >>
> >> I approve the two changes.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Dirk
> >>
> >>> * Dirk, we need your review and approval of the following two items:
> >>>
> >>> 1. This question is still pending:
> >>>
> >>>> <!-- [rfced] 11/13/2023  Authors replied, but we'll also need
> >>>> confirmation/approval from the Document Shepherd.
> >>>>
> >>>> Authors and [Document Shepherd]:
> >>>> Sections 4.1 and subsequent:  Please note that per IANA and as shown
> >>>> on <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ccnx/> , we have changed all
> >>>> instances of "TrRequest" and "TrReply" in this document to
> >>>> "PT_TR_REQUEST" and "PT_TR_REPLY", respectively.  (We also changed
> >>>> "TrReplay" to "PT_TR_REPLY" in Section 9.)
> >>>>
> >>>> Authors:  These changes per IANA are correct.
> >>>>
> >>>> Please let us know if "TRREPLYCODE-TLV-TYPE" in Figure 11 should be
> >>>> changed to "PT_TR_REPLYCODE-TLV-TYPE"; we ask because we see that
> >>>> this is now the only string that contains "TRR".
> >>>>
> >>>> Authors:  No, the original is correct as this is according to the
> >>>> conventions used in the NDN packet format specification (reference
> >>>> [NDNTLV]).
> >>>>
> >>>> Please review carefully (e.g., the updates to the text, several
> >>>> figures, and Section 9), and let us know any objections.
> >>>>
> >>>> The note from IANA (we believe that "T_TR_REQUEST" was meant to be
> >>>> "PT_TR_REQUEST"):
> >>>> = = =
> >>>> NOTE: this document needs these agreed-upon changes to the IANA
> >>>> Considerations section:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) The first sentence's "TrRequest" and "TrReply" have been
> >>>>  registered as "T_TR_REQUEST" and "PT_TR_REPLY"
> >>>> 2) The second sentence should be removed, as the "nonce" registration
> >>>>  was made via a related document
> >>>> = = =
> >>>>
> >>>> Authors:  IANA change is correct -->
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> = = = = =
> >>>
> >>> 2.  Please see Spyros's email below regarding Figure 2, Figure 5, and
> the text surrounding each.  These updates appear to be OK, as they sync
> this document up with RFC-to-be 9508, but because they are technical in
> nature we will still need you to approve them.
> >>>
> >>> = = = = = = = =
> >>>
> >>> The latest files are posted here.  Please refresh your browser:
> >>>
> >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507.txt
> >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507.pdf
> >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507.html
> >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507.xml
> >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-diff.html
> >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-rfcdiff.html
> >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-auth48diff.html
> >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-lastdiff.html
> >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-lastrfcdiff.html
> >>>
> >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-xmldiff1.html
> >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-xmldiff2.html
> >>>
> >>> Thanks again!
> >>>
> >>> RFC Editor/lb
> >>>
> >>>> On Feb 6, 2024, at 8:59 AM, Spyros Mastorakis <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Dear Lynne,
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you for your email. We spotted two “bugs” in the traceroute
> drafts that we would like to address:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1/ Figure 2: The message type should be 0x05 (i.e., "MessageType =
> 0x05" and not "MessageType = 1"). We would also like to update the
> following text right below Figure 2:
> >>>>
> >>>> "The traceroute request message is of type Interest in order to
> leverage the Interest forwarding behavior provided by the network.” update
> to “The traceroute request message is of type T_DISCOVERY.”.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2/ Figure 5: The messageType should be 0x06 (i.e., "MessageType =
> 0x06” and not "MessageType = 2”). We would also like to update the
> following text right above Figure 5:
> >>>>
> >>>> "A traceroute reply message is of type Content Object and ….” update
> to "A traceroute reply message is of type T_OBJECT and ….”.
> >>>>
> >>>> These are changes we had made to the ping draft and we meant to
> propagate them to the traceroute draft as well, but unfortunately we missed
> them.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you very much,
> >>>> Spyros
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Feb 6, 2024, at 11:07 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/rfc9507.txt&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw1I-pl4YKFEFsJMDJ8rD2aE
> >>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507.pdf&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw21n29uwohkJ-Ao9DsiTTl6
> >>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw3L7Kb1_iyT0roWQENYwo1t
> >>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507.xml&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw1rNqDG4u5jblACzJfYWwzg
> >>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-diff.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw1gZvZez_FpgYKMaU7f7osj
> >>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-rfcdiff.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw2OWVexEQjw47pFb6-2JzYT
> >>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-auth48diff.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw0G4p9mAl1PG8ZmfTmvvFNz
> >>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-lastdiff.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw38POlLZ16KdW7rU4tRGsrU
> >>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-lastrfcdiff.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw2NZK8HIM94a_yPNc2bWtfS
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-xmldiff1.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw3qNu1xe7fvNuNd7llqPaR4
> >>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-xmldiff2.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw2V7Yk-1YRAGWI-_peg5lZ0
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> RFC Editor/lb
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Nov 15, 2023, at 2:02 PM, Lynne Bartholomew <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi, Dave.  We've made the additional update per your note below.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The latest files are posted here.  Please refresh your browser:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507.txt&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw1I-pl4YKFEFsJMDJ8rD2aE
> >>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507.pdf&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw21n29uwohkJ-Ao9DsiTTl6
> >>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw3L7Kb1_iyT0roWQENYwo1t
> >>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507.xml&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw1rNqDG4u5jblACzJfYWwzg
> >>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-diff.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw1gZvZez_FpgYKMaU7f7osj
> >>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-rfcdiff.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw2OWVexEQjw47pFb6-2JzYT
> >>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-auth48diff.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw0G4p9mAl1PG8ZmfTmvvFNz
> >>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-lastdiff.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw38POlLZ16KdW7rU4tRGsrU
> >>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-lastrfcdiff.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw2NZK8HIM94a_yPNc2bWtfS
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-xmldiff1.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw3qNu1xe7fvNuNd7llqPaR4
> >>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-xmldiff2.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw2V7Yk-1YRAGWI-_peg5lZ0
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks again!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> RFC Editor/lb
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Nov 15, 2023, at 12:05 PM, David R. Oran <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The changes are fine by me. Not picky at all…
> >>>>>>> ___________________________
> >>>>>>> iDevice - please excuse typos.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Nov 15, 2023, at 1:00 PM, Lynne Bartholomew <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi again, Dave.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We have made further updates to this document per your notes
> below.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> At risk of sounding overly picky, may we make the following
> update?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> OLD:
> >>>>>>>> (in combination with a FreshnessPeriod
> >>>>>>>> TLV of value 1 for replies)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> NEW (per "TLV with a value of..." as used in Section 4.2 and
> Appendix A):
> >>>>>>>> (in combination with a FreshnessPeriod
> >>>>>>>> TLV with a value of 1 for replies)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We also see "FreshnessPeriod TLV of value 1" in RFC 9508.  If
> you'd like to make the change listed above, may we update 9508 as well?
> (Again, we grant that this is a picky request.)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The latest files are posted here.  Please refresh your browser:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507.txt&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw1I-pl4YKFEFsJMDJ8rD2aE
> >>>>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507.pdf&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw21n29uwohkJ-Ao9DsiTTl6
> >>>>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw3L7Kb1_iyT0roWQENYwo1t
> >>>>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507.xml&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw1rNqDG4u5jblACzJfYWwzg
> >>>>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-diff.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw1gZvZez_FpgYKMaU7f7osj
> >>>>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-rfcdiff.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw2OWVexEQjw47pFb6-2JzYT
> >>>>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-auth48diff.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw0G4p9mAl1PG8ZmfTmvvFNz
> >>>>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-lastdiff.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw38POlLZ16KdW7rU4tRGsrU
> >>>>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-lastrfcdiff.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw2NZK8HIM94a_yPNc2bWtfS
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-xmldiff1.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw3qNu1xe7fvNuNd7llqPaR4
> >>>>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-xmldiff2.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw2V7Yk-1YRAGWI-_peg5lZ0
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thank you!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> RFC Editor/lb
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 15, 2023, at 4:11 AM, David R. Oran <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Responses inline.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 14 Nov 2023, at 16:40, Lynne Bartholomew wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Hi again, Dave.  Thanks as always for the quick turnaround!
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> maybe we have some chance of returning to the long-abandoned
> 48 in Auth48? :-)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> We could account for inflation and go for a true AUTH96.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Regarding this item:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> It’s somewhat risky to depend on an author’s assessment
> whether readers will “obviously” see that a HopLimit is in fact a value and
> saying “value” each time is redundant and perhaps pedantic. I think it
> reads better just saying “HopLimit” rather than “HopLimit value” but you
> have a lot of experience (e.g. with Errata) so I’d like to punt to your
> judgment here. I don’t feel strongly one way for the other.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> We think that the first instance of "HopLimit value" (just
> after Figure 5) is helpful, but we find the following instances tricky and
> don't know if, or how, they should be changed:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I agree, that seems right. Specifically, for your suggestions
> below:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 4: Indicates that the HopLimit reached the 0 value.
> (maybe "HopLimit reached 0")
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Yes, I like “HopLimit reached 0”.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> When a forwarder receives a traceroute request, the HopLimit
> value is
> >>>>>>>>>> checked and decremented ...
>  (might be best to leave this as is)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Ok.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> If the HopLimit has not expired (its value is greater than 0),
> the ...      (maybe "(i.e., is greater than 0)")
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Yes, let’s go with “(i.e., is greater than 0)”
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> If the HopLimit value equals 0, the forwarder generates a
> traceroute ...    (maybe "If HopLimit equals 0")
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Yes, let’s use “If HopLimit equals 0”
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ...met, the PT_TR_REPLY Code is set to 4 to indicate that the
> HopLimit      (maybe "to indicate that the HopLimit reached 0")
> >>>>>>>>>> value reached 0.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I like your suggestion of “to indicate that the HopLimit reached
> 0”.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ... each session will have a HopLimit of value 1 to reach the
> first hop     (maybe "a HopLimit of 1")
> >>>>>>>>>> forwarder, the second request will have a HopLimit of value 2
> to ...        (maybe "a HopLimit of 2")
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Yes - your suggestions are good.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ... sending requests with increasing HopLimit values and
> potentially ...    (might be best to leave this as is)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Yes, agree.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> We don't want anything to appear redundant or pedantic either;
> please advise re. the above.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> We made further updates per your notes below and also updated
> the following, per feedback for 9508:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> MustBeFresh selector --> MustBeFresh TLV
> >>>>>>>>>> nonce name --> Nonce name
> >>>>>>>>>> Path label --> Path Label
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Great, thanks. Getting there!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The latest files are posted here.  Please refresh your browser:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507.txt&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw1I-pl4YKFEFsJMDJ8rD2aE
> >>>>>>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507.pdf&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw21n29uwohkJ-Ao9DsiTTl6
> >>>>>>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw3L7Kb1_iyT0roWQENYwo1t
> >>>>>>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507.xml&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw1rNqDG4u5jblACzJfYWwzg
> >>>>>>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-diff.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw1gZvZez_FpgYKMaU7f7osj
> >>>>>>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-rfcdiff.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw2OWVexEQjw47pFb6-2JzYT
> >>>>>>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-auth48diff.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw0G4p9mAl1PG8ZmfTmvvFNz
> >>>>>>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-lastdiff.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw38POlLZ16KdW7rU4tRGsrU
> >>>>>>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-lastrfcdiff.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw2NZK8HIM94a_yPNc2bWtfS
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-xmldiff1.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw3qNu1xe7fvNuNd7llqPaR4
> >>>>>>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-xmldiff2.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw2V7Yk-1YRAGWI-_peg5lZ0
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> We hope that your family medical matters are minimal and
> quickly resolved!  Wishing you all the best.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks again!
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> RFC Editor/lb
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 14, 2023, at 5:22 AM, David R. Oran <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 13 Nov 2023, at 15:43, Lynne Bartholomew wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Dave and *Dirk.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Dave, thank you for the kind words and your quick reply!
> >>>>>>>>>>> maybe we have some chance of returning to the long-abandoned
> 48 in Auth48? :-)
> >>>>>>>>>>> We have updated this document per your notes below.
> >>>>>>>>>>> • Dirk, as Document Shepherd, do you have any preferences
> related to publishing draft-irtf-icnrg-pathsteering-07 along with this
> document and RFC-to-be 9508? Whether or not we wait for
> draft-irtf-icnrg-pathsteering-07 doesn't affect our process in any way, but
> if you would like to hold publication of RFCs-to-be 9507 and 9508 for
> draft-irtf-icnrg-pathsteering-07, we are happy to do so.
> >>>>>>>>>>> As I mentioned in the followup reply on icnping, I’m good with
> Dirk’s view that we should publish all three together, as long as it
> doesn’t cause you more work. I’ll try to turn pathsteering around quickly
> once it pops to the top of the queue.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Dave, some follow-up questions/notes for you:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Regarding our question 7) and your reply (that the existing
> text is strictly correct): Thank you for clarifying. We wanted to ensure
> that the text will be clear to readers, and per your note, all sounds fine.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Great.
> >>>>>>>>>>> = = = = =
> >>>>>>>>>>> Regarding our question 8) and your reply: Apologies, but we
> could not determine from the reply what "it" refers to. Does it refer to
> the application? Will the meaning be clear to readers?
> >>>>>>>>>>> • <!-- [rfced] Section 3: To what does "it" refer in this
> sentence?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Original ("an named data" has been fixed):
> >>>>>>>>>>> • Trace one or more paths along which an named data of an
> >>>>>>>>>>> application can be reached in the sense that Interest packets
> can
> >>>>>>>>>>> be forwarded toward it. -->
> >>>>>>>>>>> Probably ought to change to:
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Trace one or more paths along which a named data object of an
> application…"
> >>>>>>>>>>> Oops. I found another small problem when looking at this (not
> saying “object” where it should be in the description), and then failed to
> fix the original dangling reference.
> >>>>>>>>>>> How about:
> >>>>>>>>>>> “Trace one or more paths through which a named data object can
> be reached in the sense that Interest packets can be forwarded towards the
> application hosting the object.”
> >>>>>>>>>>> = = = = =
> >>>>>>>>>>> Regarding your replies to our questions 9) and 10):
> >>>>>>>>>>> We see "Data packet" in one of the replies, but please note
> that this document currently uses "data packet" and "NDN Data Packet". Are
> additional capitalization changes needed in this document and (if
> applicable) RFC-to-be 9508?
> >>>>>>>>>>> I just answered this on icnping. Let’s do what I said there?:
> >>>>>>>>>>> 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”.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Also, please clarify the "modulo the capitalization
> consistency checks" note; we could not see where any changes are needed re.
> this note.
> >>>>>>>>>>> It was kind of a “note to self” for me to check that our
> capitalization was consistent throughout.
> >>>>>>>>>>> = = = = =
> >>>>>>>>>>> Regarding our question 25)b) and your reply, which introduces
> the term "Interest Lifetime" in this document: We added a citation for RFC
> 8609 as information for the reader. Please let us know any objections.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Perfect.
> >>>>>>>>>>> = = = = =
> >>>>>>>>>>> Regarding our question 19) and "KeywordNameComponent": We
> added a citation for [NDNTLV]; thank you!
> >>>>>>>>>>> Excellent.
> >>>>>>>>>>> = = = = =
> >>>>>>>>>>> Regarding these replies in our question 27)b):
> >>>>>>>>>>> Please use "HopLimit" I don’t think "value" adds anything.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Does this note indicate that we should also remove "value"
> from the following?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Currently:
> >>>>>>>>>>> a match with a forwarder's name, or the HopLimit value of the
> >>>>>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>>>> When a forwarder receives a traceroute request, the HopLimit
> value is
> >>>>>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>>>> If the HopLimit value equals 0, the forwarder generates a
> traceroute
> >>>>>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>>>> met, the PT_TR_REPLY Code is set to 4 to indicate that the
> HopLimit
> >>>>>>>>>>> value reached 0.
> >>>>>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>>>> sending requests with increasing HopLimit values and
> potentially
> >>>>>>>>>>> It’s somewhat risky to depend on an author’s assessment
> whether readers will “obviously” see that a HopLimit is in fact a value and
> saying “value” each time is redundant and perhaps pedantic. I think it
> reads better just saying “HopLimit” rather than “HopLimit value” but you
> have a lot of experience (e.g. with Errata) so I’d like to punt to your
> judgment here. I don’t feel strongly one way for the other.
> >>>>>>>>>>> = =
> >>>>>>>>>>> Capitalize per [NDNTLV], so "NDN Data Packet"
> >>>>>>>>>>> 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=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw1kA9NemqRggMcHhS7ZfZ41
> . Please confirm that "Packet" is as desired for this document.
> >>>>>>>>>>> See above.
> >>>>>>>>>>> I’m available for quick turnaround through this Thursday, but
> then have some family medical matters which will slow me down. It would be
> nice to get this to final text and go for author approvals by then.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>> DaveO.
> >>>>>>>>>>> = = = = =
> >>>>>>>>>>> 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/rfc9507.txt&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw1I-pl4YKFEFsJMDJ8rD2aE
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507.pdf&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw21n29uwohkJ-Ao9DsiTTl6
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw3L7Kb1_iyT0roWQENYwo1t
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507.xml&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw1rNqDG4u5jblACzJfYWwzg
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-diff.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw1gZvZez_FpgYKMaU7f7osj
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-rfcdiff.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw2OWVexEQjw47pFb6-2JzYT
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-auth48diff.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw0G4p9mAl1PG8ZmfTmvvFNz
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-xmldiff1.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw3qNu1xe7fvNuNd7llqPaR4
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9507-xmldiff2.html&source=gmail-imap&ust=1707840471000000&usg=AOvVaw2V7Yk-1YRAGWI-_peg5lZ0
> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again!
> >>>>>>>>>>> RFC Editor/lb
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 11, 2023, at 6:59 AM, David R. Oran
> [e-mail] wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> [snipping out earlier material]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >
>
>