Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9486 <draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-12> for your review

["Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" <[e-mail]>]

Dear RFC editor,

Thanks a lot for your review and suggestions. Please see inline below.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Friday, 22 September 2023 07:02
> To: [e-mail]; Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
> <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9486 <draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-
> 12> for your review
> 
> Authors,
> 
> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as
> necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
> 
> 1) <!--[rfced] Would you like to rephrase the RFC's title as follows in order
> for "(IOAM)" to be included, similar to the title of RFC 9197?
> 
> Original:
>   In-situ OAM IPv6 Options
> 
> Current:
>   In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) IPv6 Options
> 
> Perhaps:
>   IPv6 Options for In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
> (IOAM)
> -->

...FB: Agreed. Consistency with RFC 9197 is a good thing.

> 
> 
> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the
> title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search.
> -->

...FB: Given that this document is about the encapsulation of IOAM into IPv6 options, IMHO the keywords in the title are sufficient.

> 
> 
> 3) <!-- [rfced] Section 1: To closely match the text in RFC 9197, should this
> text be updated to add "that IOAM is enabled for"?
> 
> Original:
>    The terms "encapsulation" and "decapsulation" are used in this
>    document in the same way as in [RFC9197]: An IOAM encapsulating node
>    incorporates one or more IOAM-Option-Types into packets.
> 
> Perhaps:
>    The terms "encapsulation" and "decapsulation" are used in this
>    document in the same way as in [RFC9197]: An IOAM encapsulating node
>    incorporates one or more IOAM-Option-Types into packets
>    that IOAM is enabled for.
> -->

...FB: Agreed.


> 
> 
> 4) <!-- [rfced] Section 3: FYI, in order to make it clear that the list goes with
> "Option Data", we have updated the text for as follows and changed the
> indentation of the list. Please review and let us know if you prefer otherwise.
> 
> Original:
>    Option Data:  Variable-length field.  Option-Type-specific data.
> 
>    IOAM Option data is inserted as follows:
> 
>    1.  Pre-allocated Trace Option: ...
>        [...]
> 
>    2.  Proof of Transit Option: ...
>        [...]
> 
> 
> Current:
>    Option Data:  Variable-length field.  The data is specific to the
>       Option Type, as detailed below.
> 
>       Pre-allocated Trace Option: ...
> 
>          Option Type: ...
> 
>          IOAM Type: ...
> 
>       Proof of Transit Option: ...
> 
>          Option Type: ...
> 
>          IOAM Type: ...
> -->

...FB: Agreed. The enumeration also didn't make a lot of sense, i.e., the simple list like you have it now, is better.
> 
> 
> 5) <!--[rfced] Section 3: The term "4n alignment" has not been used in in
> other RFCs. Would you like to update it as follows or otherwise?
> (The surrounding text is included for context; it uses the phrase "a multiple-
> of-4 offset".)
> 
> Original:
>    All the IOAM IPv6 options defined here have alignment requirements.
>    Specifically, they all require 4n alignment.  This ensures that
>    fields specified in [RFC9197] are aligned at a multiple-of-4 offset
>    from the start of the hop-by-hop and destination options header.
> 
> Perhaps:
>    All the IOAM IPv6 options defined here have alignment requirements.
>    Specifically, they all require alignment on multiples of 4 bytes.
>    This ensures that fields specified in [RFC9197] are aligned at
>    a multiple-of-4 offset from the start of the hop-by-hop and
>    destination options header.
> -->

...FB: Agreed. 

> 
> 
> 6) <!--[rfced] Section 6: To confirm, is it intentional that the descriptions of
> the two option types exactly match?
> Both are "IOAM Destination Option and IOAM Hop-by-Hop Option", as
> shown in the registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-
> parameters/).
> -->

...FB: This is probably the best we can do. TBD_1_0 (0x11) and TBD_1_1 (0x31) apply to both hop-by-hop as well as destination options.  An alternative would be to explicitly spell out which IOAM option types apply to which value - which would make the registry entries very long and also would require updating them, as soon as any newly defined IOAM option type would use a code point. 


> 
> 
> 7) <!-- [rfced] Contributors section
> 
> FYI, per Section 4.1.1 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"), we updated the
> document to have one section titled "Contributors". We have removed the
> sentence about "and the end of this document" and used the contact
> information from the "Contributors' Addresses".
> 
> Current:
>    Contributors
> 
>    This document was the collective effort of several authors.  The text
>    and content were contributed by the editors and the coauthors listed
>    below.
> 
>       Carlos Pignataro
>       [...]
> -->
> 

...FB: ACK. Makes sense.

> 
> 8) <!-- [rfced] Please review these terms and let us know if it's acceptable to
> update to the form on the right to match past RFCs, particularly RFC 9197.
> 
>    Edge to Edge Option -> Edge-to-Edge Option
>    IOAM data fields -> IOAM Data-Fields
>    IOAM E2E option -> IOAM E2E Option
>    IOAM Option Type -> OAM Option-Type
>    IOAM domain -> IOAM-Domain
>    IOAM-Opt-Type -> IOAM Opt-Type
>    IOAM-Option-Types -> IOAM Option-Types
>    Option Type vs. Option-Type -> Option-Type
>    Proof of Transit Option -> Proof of Transit Option-Type
> -->

...FB: Perfect. Thanks for driving towards consistency. 


> 
> 
> 9) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for abbreviations upon first
> use per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each
> expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness.
> -->

...FB: Thanks. All your expansions look good to me.

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

..FB: Thanks. I did not catch any issues either. 

Thanks a lot for all the updates and suggested edits. With those, the doc looks ready to me.

Thanks, Frank
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> RFC Editor/st/ar
> 
> 
> On Sep 21, 2023, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> *****IMPORTANT*****
> 
> Updated 2023/09/21
> 
> 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/rfc9486.xml
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486.pdf
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486.txt
> 
> Diff file of the text:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486-diff.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
> 
> Diff of the XML:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486-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/rfc9486.original.v2v3.xml
> 
> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
> only:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486.form.xml
> 
> For your convenience, we have also created an alt-diff file that will
> allow you to more easily view changes where text has been deleted or
> moved:
>   http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486-alt-diff.html
> 
> Tracking progress
> -----------------
> 
> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9486
> 
> Please let us know if you have any questions.
> 
> Thank you for your cooperation,
> 
> RFC Editor
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC9486 (draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-12)
> 
> Title            : In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
> IPv6 Options
> Author(s)        : S. Bhandari, Ed., F. Brockners, Ed.
> WG Chair(s)      : Marcus Ihlar, Tommy Pauly
> Area Director(s) : Martin Duke, Zaheduzzaman Sarker