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

[Sarah Tarrant <[e-mail]>]

Hello Frank and Swetha,

Thank you for your replies.

We have updated the document according to Frank’s reply.

Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Please contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form. Note that we will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the publication process.

Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form.  We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the publication process.

Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the most recent version. 

Updated XML file:
 http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486.xml

Updated output files:
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486.html
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486.txt
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486.pdf

Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48:
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486-auth48diff.html

Comprehensive Diffs:
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486-diff.html
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486-rfcdiff.html (side-by-side diff)

For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9486

Thank you,

RFC Editor/st

> On Sep 23, 2023, at 8:08 AM, Shwetha <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Thanks much for the review and suggestions. +1 to Frank's response to the suggestions. 
> Looks good to me.
> 
> Thanks
> Shwetha
> 
> On Sat, 23 Sept 2023, 6:21 pm Frank Brockners (fbrockne), <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 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