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

[Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>]

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://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9516

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://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
> 
> 
> 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://www.iana.org/assignments/sfc-active-oam/sfc-active-oam.xhtml#sfc-active-oam.
> 
> 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://www.iana.org/assignments/sfc-active-oam 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://www.iana.org/assignments/sfc-active-oam>. 
> 
> 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://www.iana.org/assignments/sfc-active-oam>.
> 
> 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://www.iana.org/assignments/sfc-active-oam>.
> 
> 
> 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://www.iana.org/assignments/sfc-active-oam>.
> 
> 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://www.iana.org/assignments/sfc-active-oam>. 
> 
> 
> 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://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> 
> 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://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/rfc9516.xml
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9516.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9516.pdf
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9516.txt
> 
> Diff file of the text:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9516-diff.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9516-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
> 
> Diff of the XML: 
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9516-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/rfc9516.original.v2v3.xml 
> 
> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
> only: 
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9516.form.xml
> 
> 
> Tracking progress
> -----------------
> 
> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9516
> 
> 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