[auth48] [IANA #1288304] [IANA] Re: [E] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9516 <draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam-28> for your review

[David Dong via RT <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alanna,

This change is complete. Please see:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/sfc-active-oam/

Best regards,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

On Tue Nov 14 19:18:08 2023, [e-mail] wrote:
> IANA,
> 
> Please update your registries as follows to match the edited document
> at https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9516-diff.html.
> 
> 1) Please update the Description column for Value 1 in the “SFC Active
> OAM Message Type” registry <https://www.iana.org/assignments/sfc-
> active-oam/sfc-active-oam.xhtml#sfc-active-oam> to remove the second
> “Echo".
> 
> Old:
>     SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply
> 
> New:
>  SFC Echo Request/Reply
> 
> 2) Please update the titles of the "SFC Active OAM Message Type”
> registry <https://www.iana.org/assignments/sfc-active-oam/sfc-active-
> oam.xhtml#sfc-active-oam> and the "SFC Active OAM TLV Type” registry
> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/sfc-active-oam/sfc-active-
> oam.xhtml#sfc-active-tlv> to make “Type” plural in both.
> 
> Old:
> SFC Active OAM Message Type
> SFC Active OAM TLV Type
> 
> New:
> SFC Active OAM Message Types
> SFC Active OAM TLV Types
> 
> Best regards,
> RFC Editor/ap
> 
> > On Nov 14, 2023, at 11:12 AM, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Authors,
> >
> > Approvals from each author have been noted on the AUTH48 status page:
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9516
> >
> > We will now ask IANA to update their registry accordingly. After the
> > IANA updates are complete, we will move forward with the publication
> > process.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > RFC Editor/ap
> >
> >> On Nov 14, 2023, at 8:43 AM, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Gyan,
> >>
> >> We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page:
> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9516
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >> RFC Editor/ap
> >>
> >>> On Nov 13, 2023, at 11:35 AM, Mishra, Gyan S
> >>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thank you Alanna.
> >>>
> >>> I agree with all the updates and changes.
> >>>
> >>> Kind Regards
> >>>
> >>> Gyan
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 11:40 AM Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> Hi Bhumip,
> >>>
> >>> Your approval has been noted on the AUTH48 status page:
> >>>  https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-
> >>> 2Deditor.org_auth48_rfc9516&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=DnUkF34wu4mqq0UY8nn2rxBBO7qOW_D-
> >>> RfNVLML28ZU&m=U2_vqYBzvuJlI3TN9fsfhQDi6cUqv25tSimkIo_syfgEIAjC_E7_VIG00sc7ewDJ&s=d1PVySlxRqgwlM4XX4RardCecD_rXvNJNh5woXgeX9k&e=
> >>>
> >>> We will await approvals from Ting and Gyan.
> >>>
> >>> Thank you,
> >>> RFC Editor/ap
> >>>
> >>>> On Nov 11, 2023, at 12:19 PM, B. Khasnabish <[e-mail]>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you Alanna. Yes, agree with the updates/changes.
> >>>>
> >>>> Once again, many Thanks in advance.
> >>>>
> >>>> Best Regards,
> >>>>
> >>>> Bhumip
> >>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> Bhumip Khasnabish | [phone] (m)
> >>>> [e-mail]
> >>>>
> >>>> ::
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 4:49 PM Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>> Greetings,
> >>>>
> >>>> We do not believe we have heard from you regarding this document's
> >>>> readiness for publication.  Please review our previous messages
> >>>> describing the AUTH48 process and containing any document-specific
> >>>> questions we may have had.
> >>>>
> >>>> We will wait to hear from you before continuing with the
> >>>> publication process.
> >>>>
> >>>> The AUTH48 status page for this document is located here:
> >>>>  https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-
> >>>> 2Deditor.org_auth48_rfc9516&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=DnUkF34wu4mqq0UY8nn2rxBBO7qOW_D-
> >>>> RfNVLML28ZU&m=U2_vqYBzvuJlI3TN9fsfhQDi6cUqv25tSimkIo_syfgEIAjC_E7_VIG00sc7ewDJ&s=d1PVySlxRqgwlM4XX4RardCecD_rXvNJNh5woXgeX9k&e=
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you,
> >>>> RFC Editor/ap
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Oct 30, 2023, at 3:56 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] Please note the title of the document has been
> >>>>> updated as
> >>>>> follows. Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC
> >>>>> 7322
> >>>>> ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Original:
> >>>>> Active OAM for Service Function Chaining (SFC)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Current:
> >>>>>  Active Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) for
> >>>>> Service
> >>>>> Function Chaining (SFC)
> >>>>> -->
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that
> >>>>> appear in the
> >>>>> title) for use on
> >>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-
> >>>>> 2Deditor.org_search&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=DnUkF34wu4mqq0UY8nn2rxBBO7qOW_D-
> >>>>> RfNVLML28ZU&m=U2_vqYBzvuJlI3TN9fsfhQDi6cUqv25tSimkIo_syfgEIAjC_E7_VIG00sc7ewDJ&s=MrZDy9pnR_eo2r-
> >>>>> EZc4L_6cvsCbAiB_hrwt29m6aFCU&e= . -->
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 3) <!--[rfced] We do not see "Performance Monitoring OAM"
> >>>>> mentioned in RFC
> >>>>> 8924.  Please let us know if/how this citation should be updated.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Additionally, "as a requirement" is unclear. May we update the
> >>>>> sentence as
> >>>>> follows?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Original:
> >>>>> Note that
> >>>>> Performance Monitoring OAM, as mentioned in [RFC8924], as a
> >>>>> requirement, is not satisfied by this document and is out of
> >>>>> scope.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Perhaps:
> >>>>> Note that
> >>>>> Performance Monitoring OAM, as required by [RFC8924],
> >>>>> is not satisfied by this document and is out of scope.
> >>>>> -->
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 4) <!--[rfced] Should the terms in Section 2.2 be listed in
> >>>>> alphabetical
> >>>>> order? -->
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] Please confirm that references to Section 6.5.4
> >>>>> for SFF
> >>>>> traceroute are correct, as we don't see mention of SFF or Service
> >>>>> Function
> >>>>> Forwarders in that section.  Perhaps "SFF traceroute" should be
> >>>>> "SFP
> >>>>> tracing"?  Please let us know if any updates are neeeded.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Original:
> >>>>> *  REQ#2: Continuity monitoring via the SFF traceroute defined in
> >>>>>    Section 6.5.4 ("Tracing an SFP ").
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *  REQ#4: Connectivity verification via the SFF traceroute
> >>>>>    (Section 6.5.4).
> >>>>> -->
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] We have updated the following 2 instances of
> >>>>> "Active SFC
> >>>>>  OAM" to "SFC Active OAM" to match the description in the IANA
> >>>>> registry.
> >>>>> Please let us know if any updates are needed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Original:
> >>>>> To identify the active SFC
> >>>>> OAM message, the "Next Protocol" field MUST be set to Active SFC
> >>>>> OAM
> >>>>> (TBA1) (Section 10.1). ... A case when the O bit is clear and the
> >>>>> "Next Protocol" field value is set to Active SFC OAM (TBA1) is
> >>>>> considered an erroneous combination.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We note that Figure 2 includes a "SFC Active OAM Control Packet"
> >>>>> field, but
> >>>>> the section title is "Active SFC OAM Header" - should the section
> >>>>> title be
> >>>>> SFC Active OAM Header?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Original:
> >>>>> 5.  Active SFC OAM Header
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Perhaps:
> >>>>> 5.  SFC Active OAM Header
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In addition, the term appears inconsistently throughout the
> >>>>> document.
> >>>>> Please review and let us know how/if these may be updated for
> >>>>> consistency.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> active SFC OAM vs Active SFC OAM (capitalization)
> >>>>> SFC active OAM vs SFC Active OAM (capitalization)
> >>>>> active SFC OAM vs SFC active OAM (location of "active")
> >>>>> -->
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 7) <!--[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.
> >>>>> -->
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 8) <!--[rfced] In Section 6.4.1, should "Errored TLVs Type" be
> >>>>> "Errored
> >>>>> TLVs" to match the field in Figure 6?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Original:
> >>>>> The Errored TLVs Type <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be set to 2 (Section
> >>>>> 10.4).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Perhaps:
> >>>>> Errored TLVs - <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be set to 2 (Section 10.4).
> >>>>> -->
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 9) <!--[rfced] We are having some trouble parsing "information on
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> actual path the CVReq packet has traveled". Is this meant to
> >>>>> described the
> >>>>> information that is collected?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Original:
> >>>>> As a result, the ingress SFF collects information about all
> >>>>> traversed
> >>>>> SFFs and SFs, information on the actual path the CVReq packet has
> >>>>> traveled.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Perhaps:
> >>>>> As a result, the ingress SFF collects information about all
> >>>>> traversed
> >>>>> SFFs and SFs, i.e., information on the actual path the CVReq
> >>>>> packet has
> >>>>>   traveled.
> >>>>> -->
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 10) <!--[rfced] There are no definitions for the "Length" and "SF
> >>>>> Information Sub-TLV" fields in Figure 9. Should ones be added? If
> >>>>> so,
> >>>>> please provide text.
> >>>>>    -->
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 11) <!--[rfced] In Section 6.6.2, should "SF sub-TLV Type" be "SF
> >>>>> Sub-TLV"
> >>>>> to match the field in Figure 10?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Original:
> >>>>> SF sub-TLV Type: one-octet long field.  The value is (5)
> >>>>>    (Section 10.4).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Perhaps:
> >>>>> SF Sub-TLV : one-octet field.  The value is (5) (Section 10.4).
> >>>>>       -->
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 12) <!--[rfced] To clarify, does "their" refer to the "SF ID
> >>>>> Type"? If so,
> >>>>> may we update "their" to "its"?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Original:
> >>>>> For this case, the SF ID Type,
> >>>>> which must be the same for all of these SFs, appears once but all
> >>>>> of
> >>>>> their SF Identifiers will appear concatenated in the SF
> >>>>> Identifier
> >>>>> area of the Sub-TLV (see Figure 10).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Perhaps:
> >>>>> For this case, the SF ID Type,
> >>>>> which must be the same for all of these SFs, appears once but all
> >>>>> of
> >>>>> its SF Identifiers will appear concatenated in the SF Identifier
> >>>>> area of the sub-TLV (see Figure 10).
> >>>>> -->
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 13) <!-- [rfced] Should the section title and registry title be
> >>>>> plural
> >>>>> (i.e., s/Type/Types)?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Perhaps:
> >>>>> SFC Active OAM Message Types
> >>>>> -->
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 14) <!-- [rfced] The IETF Review range has been updated to
> >>>>> specify 0-31, to
> >>>>> match what appears in the IANA registry.  See
> >>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> >>>>> 3A__www.iana.org_assignments_sfc-2Dactive-2Doam_sfc-2Dactive-
> >>>>> 2Doam.xhtml-23sfc-2Dactive-
> >>>>> 2Doam&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=DnUkF34wu4mqq0UY8nn2rxBBO7qOW_D-
> >>>>> RfNVLML28ZU&m=U2_vqYBzvuJlI3TN9fsfhQDi6cUqv25tSimkIo_syfgEIAjC_E7_VIG00sc7ewDJ&s=RyG6sFnf-
> >>>>> gTI3NHNlba6gI8mMkn25eU-LxlC2UNilwA&e= .
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Original:
> >>>>> 2-31 IETF Review
> >>>>> -->
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 15) <!-- [rfced] May we update instances of "Echo Request/Echo
> >>>>> Reply" to be
> >>>>> "Echo Request/Reply" throughout the document, including the IANA-
> >>>>> related
> >>>>> text, to align with text in Section 2?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From Section 2:
> >>>>>                    In this document, "Echo Request/Reply" and
> >>>>> "SFC Echo
> >>>>> Request/Reply" are used interchangeably.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For example, this is the current IANA-related text from Table 2:
> >>>>> | 1      | SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply | RFC 9516  |
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Perhaps:
> >>>>> | 1      | SFC Echo Request/Reply | RFC 9516  |
> >>>>> -->
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 16) <!-- [rfced] Note that these two rows have been combined to
> >>>>> match what
> >>>>> appears in the IANA registry:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Original:
> >>>>>       | 2 - 31 |          Unassigned         | This document |
> >>>>>       | 32-62  |          Unassigned         | This document |
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Current:
> >>>>>     | 2 - 62 |          Unassigned         |           |
> >>>>> -->
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 17) <!-- [rfced] We do not see an "SFC Echo Request/Echo Reply
> >>>>> Parameters"
> >>>>> registry within the "Service Function Chaining (SFC) Active
> >>>>> Operations,
> >>>>> Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)" registry.  Based on the
> >>>>> IANA
> >>>>> actions, we believe the intent is for registries defined in
> >>>>> sections 10.3.1
> >>>>> - 10.3.4, 10.4, and 10.5 (in the I-D) to be created within the
> >>>>> "Service
> >>>>> Function Chaining (SFC) Active Operations, Administration, and
> >>>>> Maintenance
> >>>>> (OAM)" registry - we have updated the text accordingly (including
> >>>>> removing
> >>>>> Section 10.3).  Please review the updates carefully and let us
> >>>>> know any
> >>>>> objections.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From IANA:
> >>>>> We've created the following registries and placed them in the
> >>>>> "Service
> >>>>> Function Chaining (SFC) Active Operations, Administration, and
> >>>>> Maintenance
> >>>>>  (OAM)" registry group:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> SFC Active OAM Message Type
> >>>>> SFC Echo Request Flags
> >>>>> SFC Echo Types
> >>>>> SFC Echo Reply Modes
> >>>>> SFC Echo Return Codes
> >>>>> SFC Active OAM TLV Type
> >>>>> SF Identifier Types
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> >>>>> 3A__www.iana.org_assignments_sfc-2Dactive-
> >>>>> 2Doam&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=DnUkF34wu4mqq0UY8nn2rxBBO7qOW_D-
> >>>>> RfNVLML28ZU&m=U2_vqYBzvuJlI3TN9fsfhQDi6cUqv25tSimkIo_syfgEIAjC_E7_VIG00sc7ewDJ&s=eDzoSXrU7nyC-
> >>>>> sdHVKSu6INdKgCzJV_g_tZu2HJ4-BY&e=  for the list of
> >>>>>  registrations and procedures.
> >>>>> -->
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 18) <!-- [rfced] Section 9.2.3. SFC Echo Types
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Note that the IETF Review range has been updated to reflect what
> >>>>> appears in
> >>>>>  the IANA registry.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The following ranges were commented out in the XML, but they
> >>>>> appear in the
> >>>>>  IANA registry.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 240-251    Experimental Use
> >>>>> 252-254    Private Use
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We have re-added the ranges to the Assignment Policy, as the
> >>>>> ranges appear
> >>>>> in the IANA registry and the table below.  Please review and let
> >>>>> us know
> >>>>> whether these ranges are valid or if they should be removed from
> >>>>> the IANA
> >>>>>  registry.
> >>>>> See <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> >>>>> 3A__www.iana.org_assignments_sfc-2Dactive-
> >>>>> 2Doam&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=DnUkF34wu4mqq0UY8nn2rxBBO7qOW_D-
> >>>>> RfNVLML28ZU&m=U2_vqYBzvuJlI3TN9fsfhQDi6cUqv25tSimkIo_syfgEIAjC_E7_VIG00sc7ewDJ&s=eDzoSXrU7nyC-
> >>>>> sdHVKSu6INdKgCzJV_g_tZu2HJ4-BY&e= >.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Note that these rows have been combined to match what appears in
> >>>>> the IANA
> >>>>> registry.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> | 5 - 175   |              Unassigned              |         |
> >>>>> | 176 - 239 |              Unassigned              |         |
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Current:
> >>>>>  | 5 - 239   |              Unassigned              |         |
> >>>>> -->
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 19) <!-- [rfced] Section 9.2.4.  SFC Echo Reply Modes
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Similar to what was done for Section 9.2.3, the IETF Review range
> >>>>> has been
> >>>>> updated to reflect what appears in the IANA registry.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The following ranges were commented out in the XML, but they
> >>>>> appear in the
> >>>>> IANA registry.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 240 - 251   Experimental
> >>>>> 252 - 254   Private Use
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We have re-added the ranges to the Assignment Policy, as the
> >>>>> ranges appear
> >>>>> in the IANA registry and the table below.  Please review and let
> >>>>> us know
> >>>>> whether these ranges are valid or if they should be removed from
> >>>>> the IANA
> >>>>> registry.
> >>>>> See <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> >>>>> 3A__www.iana.org_assignments_sfc-2Dactive-
> >>>>> 2Doam&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=DnUkF34wu4mqq0UY8nn2rxBBO7qOW_D-
> >>>>> RfNVLML28ZU&m=U2_vqYBzvuJlI3TN9fsfhQDi6cUqv25tSimkIo_syfgEIAjC_E7_VIG00sc7ewDJ&s=eDzoSXrU7nyC-
> >>>>> sdHVKSu6INdKgCzJV_g_tZu2HJ4-BY&e= >.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Note that these rows have been combined to match what appears in
> >>>>> the IANA
> >>>>> registry.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> | 8 -   |             Unassigned             |         |
> >>>>>                            | 175   |
> >>>>> |         |
> >>>>>                            | 176 - |             Unassigned
> >>>>> |         |
> >>>>>                            | 239   |
> >>>>> |         |
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -->
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 20) <!-- [rfced] Section 9.2.5.  SFC Echo Return Codes
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Similar to above, the IETF Review range has been updated to
> >>>>> reflect what
> >>>>> appears in the IANA registry.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The following range was commented out in the XML, but it appears
> >>>>> in the
> >>>>> IANA registry.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 252 - 254   Private Use
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We have re-added the range to the Assignment Policy, as the range
> >>>>> appears
> >>>>> in the IANA registry and the table below.  Please review and let
> >>>>> us know
> >>>>> whether the range is valid or if it should be removed from the
> >>>>> IANA
> >>>>> registry.
> >>>>> See <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> >>>>> 3A__www.iana.org_assignments_sfc-2Dactive-
> >>>>> 2Doam&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=DnUkF34wu4mqq0UY8nn2rxBBO7qOW_D-
> >>>>> RfNVLML28ZU&m=U2_vqYBzvuJlI3TN9fsfhQDi6cUqv25tSimkIo_syfgEIAjC_E7_VIG00sc7ewDJ&s=eDzoSXrU7nyC-
> >>>>> sdHVKSu6INdKgCzJV_g_tZu2HJ4-BY&e= >.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Note that these rows have been combined to match what appears in
> >>>>> the IANA
> >>>>> registry.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> | 9 -191  |                  Unassigned                 |
> >>>>> |
> >>>>> | 192-251 |                  Unassigned                 |
> >>>>> |
> >>>>> -->
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 21) <!-- [rfced]  9.2.6. SFC Active OAM TLV Type
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Should the registry and section title be plural (i.e.,
> >>>>> s/Type/Types)?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Note that the IETF Review range has been updated to reflect what
> >>>>> appears in
> >>>>> the IANA registry.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The following ranges were commented out in the XML, but they
> >>>>> appear in the
> >>>>>  IANA registry.
> >>>>> 240 - 251  Experimental
> >>>>> 252 - 254   Private Use
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We have re-added the ranges to the Assignment Policy, as the
> >>>>> ranges appear
> >>>>> in the IANA registry and the table below.  Please review and let
> >>>>> us know
> >>>>> whether these ranges are valid or if they should be removed from
> >>>>> the IANA
> >>>>> registry.
> >>>>> See <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> >>>>> 3A__www.iana.org_assignments_sfc-2Dactive-
> >>>>> 2Doam&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=DnUkF34wu4mqq0UY8nn2rxBBO7qOW_D-
> >>>>> RfNVLML28ZU&m=U2_vqYBzvuJlI3TN9fsfhQDi6cUqv25tSimkIo_syfgEIAjC_E7_VIG00sc7ewDJ&s=eDzoSXrU7nyC-
> >>>>> sdHVKSu6INdKgCzJV_g_tZu2HJ4-BY&e= >.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Note that these rows have been combined to match what appears in
> >>>>> the IANA
> >>>>> registry.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> | 6 - 175   |             Unassigned            |          |
> >>>>> | 176 - 239 |             Unassigned            |          |
> >>>>> -->
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 22) <!--[rfced] 9.2.7.  SF Identifier Types
> >>>>>
> >>>>> FYI, as no SF Types registry is mentioned in RFC 9263, we have
> >>>>> removed the citation from the sentence below.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Original:
> >>>>> IANA is requested to create in the SF Types registry [RFC9263]
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> sub-registry as follows:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Similar to above, the IETF Review range has been updated to
> >>>>> reflect what
> >>>>> appears in the IANA registry.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The following range was commented out in the XML, but it appears
> >>>>> in the
> >>>>> IANA registry.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 252 - 254   Private Use
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We have re-added the range to the Assignment Policy, as the range
> >>>>> appears
> >>>>> in the IANA registry and the table below.  Please review and let
> >>>>> us know
> >>>>> whether the range is valid or if it should be removed from the
> >>>>> IANA
> >>>>>  registry.
> >>>>> See <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> >>>>> 3A__www.iana.org_assignments_sfc-2Dactive-
> >>>>> 2Doam&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=DnUkF34wu4mqq0UY8nn2rxBBO7qOW_D-
> >>>>> RfNVLML28ZU&m=U2_vqYBzvuJlI3TN9fsfhQDi6cUqv25tSimkIo_syfgEIAjC_E7_VIG00sc7ewDJ&s=eDzoSXrU7nyC-
> >>>>> sdHVKSu6INdKgCzJV_g_tZu2HJ4-BY&e= >.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Note that these rows have been combined to match what appears in
> >>>>> the IANA
> >>>>> registry.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> | 4 -191  |  Unassigned |          |
> >>>>> | 192-251 |  Unassigned |          |
> >>>>> -->
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 23) <!-- [rfced] Throughout the text, the following terminology
> >>>>> appears to
> >>>>> be used inconsistently. May we update to use the latter ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> performance monitoring vs. Performance Monitoring
> >>>>> Echo Request/Echo Reply vs. Echo Request/Reply
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -->
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 24) <!-- [rfced] Acronyms
> >>>>>
> >>>>> a) "SFC" has been expanded as both "Service Function Chain" and
> >>>>> "Service
> >>>>>  Function Chaining" in this document. We have updated to use the
> >>>>> latter to
> >>>>>  parallel the use in the other documents from Cluster C479 (RFCs
> >>>>> 9451 and
> >>>>>  9452). Note that instances of "service function chain"
> >>>>> (lowercased) have
> >>>>> been left as is. Please let us know of any objections.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> b) FYI - We have expanded the following abbreviation
> >>>>> per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review
> >>>>> each
> >>>>> expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Label Switched Path (LSP)
> >>>>> -->
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 25) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion
> >>>>> of the
> >>>>> online Style Guide
> >>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-
> >>>>> 2Deditor.org_styleguide_part2_-23inclusive-
> >>>>> 5Flanguage&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=DnUkF34wu4mqq0UY8nn2rxBBO7qOW_D-
> >>>>> RfNVLML28ZU&m=U2_vqYBzvuJlI3TN9fsfhQDi6cUqv25tSimkIo_syfgEIAjC_E7_VIG00sc7ewDJ&s=sOKdAnlc1-
> >>>>> cS-S21kq0BfKhEuWPtH5F-Jtm-6BEwBL8&e= >
> >>>>> and let us know if any changes are needed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For example, please consider whether "sanity" should be updated.
> >>>>> -->
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> RFC Editor
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Oct 30, 2023, at 1:52 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Updated 2023/10/30
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-
> >>>>> 2Deditor.org_faq_&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=DnUkF34wu4mqq0UY8nn2rxBBO7qOW_D-
> >>>>> RfNVLML28ZU&m=U2_vqYBzvuJlI3TN9fsfhQDi6cUqv25tSimkIo_syfgEIAjC_E7_VIG00sc7ewDJ&s=8v7Qy1AZMoPG0P3WfkOXz4cDC8amHutrv61vQPUw-
> >>>>> x4&e= ).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> >>>>> 3A__trustee.ietf.org_license-
> >>>>> 2Dinfo_&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=DnUkF34wu4mqq0UY8nn2rxBBO7qOW_D-
> >>>>> RfNVLML28ZU&m=U2_vqYBzvuJlI3TN9fsfhQDi6cUqv25tSimkIo_syfgEIAjC_E7_VIG00sc7ewDJ&s=-
> >>>>> IsSl7vbTAlQn0KKIYTQQMAKRu2gfENRsI_d4fOD5RM&e= ).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *  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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> >>>>> 3A__authors.ietf.org_rfcxml-
> >>>>> 2Dvocabulary&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=DnUkF34wu4mqq0UY8nn2rxBBO7qOW_D-
> >>>>> RfNVLML28ZU&m=U2_vqYBzvuJlI3TN9fsfhQDi6cUqv25tSimkIo_syfgEIAjC_E7_VIG00sc7ewDJ&s=8giPwx48JpY7nx83B3gEke0Ds_ch51r2RcGtrb8DSLU&e=
> >>>>> >.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *  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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> >>>>> 3A__mailarchive.ietf.org_arch_msg_ietf-2Dannounce_yb6lpIGh-
> >>>>> 2D4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=DnUkF34wu4mqq0UY8nn2rxBBO7qOW_D-
> >>>>> RfNVLML28ZU&m=U2_vqYBzvuJlI3TN9fsfhQDi6cUqv25tSimkIo_syfgEIAjC_E7_VIG00sc7ewDJ&s=Xpv_RGqQvhqtNJZYsAZdjRqqqMLITUhSheAlBOS0QcM&e=
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *  The archive itself:
> >>>>>     https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> >>>>> 3A__mailarchive.ietf.org_arch_browse_auth48archive_&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=DnUkF34wu4mqq0UY8nn2rxBBO7qOW_D-
> >>>>> RfNVLML28ZU&m=U2_vqYBzvuJlI3TN9fsfhQDi6cUqv25tSimkIo_syfgEIAjC_E7_VIG00sc7ewDJ&s=ZZF5J6GNV98YvflVxho-
> >>>>> ehYkE4XVuSgzPxUv7BMXRuo&e=
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *  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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-
> >>>>> 2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9516.xml&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=DnUkF34wu4mqq0UY8nn2rxBBO7qOW_D-
> >>>>> RfNVLML28ZU&m=U2_vqYBzvuJlI3TN9fsfhQDi6cUqv25tSimkIo_syfgEIAjC_E7_VIG00sc7ewDJ&s=SxAnToF1bD17Ylf0ISe7m-
> >>>>> ZEuYAvsaaRRIqom0YC-tg&e=
> >>>>>  https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-
> >>>>> 2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9516.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=DnUkF34wu4mqq0UY8nn2rxBBO7qOW_D-
> >>>>> RfNVLML28ZU&m=U2_vqYBzvuJlI3TN9fsfhQDi6cUqv25tSimkIo_syfgEIAjC_E7_VIG00sc7ewDJ&s=ws6XasfHZmTCyStHTHQJvo8drKIMBKIeSdF5X94ndLY&e=
> >>>>>  https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-
> >>>>> 2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9516.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=DnUkF34wu4mqq0UY8nn2rxBBO7qOW_D-
> >>>>> RfNVLML28ZU&m=U2_vqYBzvuJlI3TN9fsfhQDi6cUqv25tSimkIo_syfgEIAjC_E7_VIG00sc7ewDJ&s=P5Qm6-
> >>>>> WcRWIQgsfhP_9_7pApSvXGfi351eSpK3WGCW4&e=
> >>>>>  https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-
> >>>>> 2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9516.txt&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=DnUkF34wu4mqq0UY8nn2rxBBO7qOW_D-
> >>>>> RfNVLML28ZU&m=U2_vqYBzvuJlI3TN9fsfhQDi6cUqv25tSimkIo_syfgEIAjC_E7_VIG00sc7ewDJ&s=dPqAG6AEpPOfCnnBZfJp5Nxh59pfzDkdTFh5Eo6VeOM&e=
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Diff file of the text:
> >>>>>  https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-
> >>>>> 2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9516-
> >>>>> 2Ddiff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=DnUkF34wu4mqq0UY8nn2rxBBO7qOW_D-
> >>>>> RfNVLML28ZU&m=U2_vqYBzvuJlI3TN9fsfhQDi6cUqv25tSimkIo_syfgEIAjC_E7_VIG00sc7ewDJ&s=1BJbDOHJQPxTf1aoNF5jypj_7ORWrXKn7lwOdWnsAJ0&e=
> >>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-
> >>>>> 2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9516-
> >>>>> 2Drfcdiff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=DnUkF34wu4mqq0UY8nn2rxBBO7qOW_D-
> >>>>> RfNVLML28ZU&m=U2_vqYBzvuJlI3TN9fsfhQDi6cUqv25tSimkIo_syfgEIAjC_E7_VIG00sc7ewDJ&s=qc-
> >>>>> DM9p0gK0B36AxMShc-W8LEI5bWduwvcS0kROi0xM&e=  (side by side)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Diff of the XML:
> >>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-
> >>>>> 2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9516-
> >>>>> 2Dxmldiff1.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=DnUkF34wu4mqq0UY8nn2rxBBO7qOW_D-
> >>>>> RfNVLML28ZU&m=U2_vqYBzvuJlI3TN9fsfhQDi6cUqv25tSimkIo_syfgEIAjC_E7_VIG00sc7ewDJ&s=Mk51dKFss9G2tyOhB7TSM_SqyamMui_-
> >>>>> F3Kz0MTRmvM&e=
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your
> >>>>> own
> >>>>>  diff files of the XML.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
> >>>>>   https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-
> >>>>> 2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9516.original.v2v3.xml&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=DnUkF34wu4mqq0UY8nn2rxBBO7qOW_D-
> >>>>> RfNVLML28ZU&m=U2_vqYBzvuJlI3TN9fsfhQDi6cUqv25tSimkIo_syfgEIAjC_E7_VIG00sc7ewDJ&s=M78Dni2xKbQmdBK8TbwvmxGrHdV9VEe2IjzWoiygWsI&e=
> >>>>>
> >>>>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format
> >>>>> updates
> >>>>> only:
> >>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-
> >>>>> 2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9516.form.xml&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=DnUkF34wu4mqq0UY8nn2rxBBO7qOW_D-
> >>>>> RfNVLML28ZU&m=U2_vqYBzvuJlI3TN9fsfhQDi6cUqv25tSimkIo_syfgEIAjC_E7_VIG00sc7ewDJ&s=3IBljze4OS1Ub5Heycrz-
> >>>>> KepqD2lHgtOzdCTfFAn8vs&e=
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Tracking progress
> >>>>> -----------------
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
> >>>>>  https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-
> >>>>> 2Deditor.org_auth48_rfc9516&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=DnUkF34wu4mqq0UY8nn2rxBBO7qOW_D-
> >>>>> RfNVLML28ZU&m=U2_vqYBzvuJlI3TN9fsfhQDi6cUqv25tSimkIo_syfgEIAjC_E7_VIG00sc7ewDJ&s=d1PVySlxRqgwlM4XX4RardCecD_rXvNJNh5woXgeX9k&e=
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> RFC Editor
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --------------------------------------
> >>>>> RFC9516 (draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam-28)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Title            : Active OAM for Service Function Chaining (SFC)
> >>>>> Author(s)        : G. Mirsky, W. Meng, T. Ao, B. Khasnabish, K.
> >>>>> Leung, G. Mishra
> >>>>> WG Chair(s)      : Joel M. Halpern, Jim Guichard
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Gyan Mishra
> >>> IT Technologist & Innovations Specialist
> >>> Associate Fellow-Network Design
> >>>  Network Solutions Architect,
> >>> R&S, SP SME & Protocol Design Expert
> >>> Global Technology Services
> >>> O 240 970-6287
> >>> M 301 502-1347
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >