Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9322 <draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-10> for your review

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

Hi Megan, RFC Editor team,

Just in case my statement below was seem as ambiguous: I do APPROVE the document.

Thanks again, Frank

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
> Sent: Tuesday, 11 October 2022 21:38
> To: Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]>; Tal Mizrahi
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Tommy Pauly
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Cc: RFC Errata System <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; ippm-
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9322 <draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-10> for your
> review
> 
> Hi Megan, RFC Editor team,
> 
> Thanks for your work on this document. I agree with Tal's suggestions - and
> approve the document.
> 
> Similar to the DEX draft, the editorial changes that were done to my address
> render it wrong. The "3rd floor" apply to the building, not the Cisco office within
> the building, so either omit the "3rd floor" or put it below the "Hansaallee 249".
> 
> OLD:
>    Frank Brockners
>    Cisco Systems, Inc.
>    3rd Floor
>    Hansaallee 249
>    40549 Duesseldorf
>    Germany
>    Email: [e-mail]
> 
> NEW
>    Frank Brockners
>    Cisco Systems, Inc.
>    Hansaallee 249
>    40549 Duesseldorf
>    Germany
>    Email: [e-mail]
> 
> Thanks again, Frank
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Friday, 7 October 2022 15:11
> > To: Tal Mizrahi <[e-mail]>; Frank Brockners
> > (fbrockne) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Tommy Pauly
> > <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]
> > Cc: RFC Errata System <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> > ippm- [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9322 <draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-10>
> > for your review
> >
> > Authors,
> >
> > Just a friendly reminder that this document is awaiting response from
> > the majority of you.
> >
> > Please see the updated files below and contact us at your earliest
> > convenience with either your approval of the document in its current
> > form or any updates you may have.
> >
> > The files are viewable at:
> >
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9322.txt
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9322.pdf
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9322.html
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9322.xml
> >
> > The relevant diff files are at:
> >
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9322-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9322-rfcdiff.html
> > (comprehensive
> > rfcdiff)
> >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9322-auth48diff.html (AUTH48
> > changes
> > only)
> >
> > The AUTH48 status page is viewable at:
> >
> > http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9322
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > RFC Editor/mf
> >
> >
> > > On Sep 26, 2022, at 1:37 PM, Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Greetings,
> > >
> > > Thank you for your reply.  We have updated the AUTH48 status page to
> > > reflect your approval and the file with any updates requested.
> > >
> > > Please note that we will assume your assent to any further changes
> > > submitted by your coauthors unless we hear otherwise at that time.
> > >
> > > The files are viewable at:
> > >
> > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9322.txt
> > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9322.pdf
> > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9322.html
> > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9322.xml
> > >
> > > The relevant diff files are at:
> > >
> > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9322-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
> > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9322-rfcdiff.html
> > > (comprehensive
> > rfcdiff)
> > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9322-auth48diff.html (AUTH48
> > > changes only)
> > >
> > > The AUTH48 status page is viewable at:
> > >
> > > http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9322
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > RFC Editor/mf
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Sep 22, 2022, at 4:39 AM, Tal Mizrahi
> > >> <[e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Dear RFC Editor team,
> > >>
> > >> Many thanks for your work on this document.
> > >> I approve.
> > >>
> > >> Please see my replies below, marked by [TM].
> > >>
> > >> Cheers,
> > >> Tal.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 11:23 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] FYI - we have updated the Mickey's organization
> > >>>    information in the header for brevity.  Please let us know any
> > >>>    objections. -->
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> 2) <!--[rfced] Please review our update to lowercase "loopback" in
> > >>> the
> > following text to ensure that this does not change your intended meaning.
> > >>>
> > >>> Original:
> > >>>
> > >>> Similar techniques can be applied by an IOAM encapsulating node to
> > >>> apply Loopback to a subset of the forwarded traffic.
> > >>>
> > >>> Current:
> > >>> Similar techniques can be applied by an IOAM encapsulating node to
> > >>> apply loopback to a subset of the forwarded traffic.
> > >>> -->
> > >>
> > >> [TM] Makes sense.
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> 3) <!--[rfced] Should "transit packet" be plural in this sentence to create
> > >>>    parallel structure?
> > >>>
> > >>> Original:
> > >>> An attacker that sets this flag, either in synthetic packets or
> > >>> transit packet, can potentially cause an amplification...
> > >>>
> > >>> Perhaps:
> > >>> An attacker that sets this flag, either in synthetic packets or
> > >>> transit packets, can potentially cause an amplification...-->
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> [TM] Yes, please go ahead and apply this change.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> 4)   <!--[rfced] Throughout the document, we used the following capping
> > >>>      schemes to match use in RFC 9197. Please let us know any
> > >>>      objections.
> > >>>
> > >>> IOAM data fields to IOAM-Data-Fields IOAM domain(s) to
> > >>> IOAM-Domain(s)
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> [TM] Makes sense.
> > >>
> > >>> -->
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Thank you.
> > >>>
> > >>> RFC Editor/mc/mf
> > >>>
> > >>> *****IMPORTANT*****
> > >>>
> > >>> Updated 2022/09/21
> > >>>
> > >>> 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-4Q9l2
> > >>> US
> > >>> xIAe6P8O4Zc
> > >>>
> > >>>    *  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/rfc9322.xml
> > >>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9322.html
> > >>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9322.pdf
> > >>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9322.txt
> > >>>
> > >>> Diff file of the text:
> > >>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9322-diff.html
> > >>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9322-rfcdiff.html (side by
> > >>> side)
> > >>>
> > >>> Diff of the XML:
> > >>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9322-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/rfc9322.original.v2v3.xml
> > >>>
> > >>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format
> > >>> updates
> > >>> only:
> > >>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9322.form.xml
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Tracking progress
> > >>> -----------------
> > >>>
> > >>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
> > >>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9322
> > >>>
> > >>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thank you for your cooperation,
> > >>>
> > >>> RFC Editor
> > >>>
> > >>> --------------------------------------
> > >>> RFC9322 (draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-10)
> > >>>
> > >>> Title            : In-situ OAM Loopback and Active Flags
> > >>> Author(s)        : T. Mizrahi, F. Brockners, S. Bhandari, B. Gafni, M. Spiegel
> > >>> WG Chair(s)      : Marcus Ihlar, Tommy Pauly
> > >>> Area Director(s) : Martin Duke, Zaheduzzaman Sarker
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >