Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9521 <draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve-13> for your review

[Santosh P K <[e-mail]>]

I approve the changes. Sorry for delayed reply.

Thanks
Santosh P K

On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 at 10:42 PM, Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> We have received all necessary approvals and are ready to move this
> document forward in the publication process at this time.
>
> The AUTH48 status page of this document is available at
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9521.
>
> Thank you for your time and attention during AUTH48.
>
> RFC Editor/mf
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 2024, at 7:15 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> >
> > I approve the changes as well.
> >
> >
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Xiao Min
> >
> > Original
> > From: SamAldrin <[e-mail]>
> > To: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>;
> > Cc: Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]>;Jeff Tantsura <
> [e-mail]>;肖敏10093570;Santosh P K <
> [e-mail]>;[e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]
> >;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> > Date: 2024年01月03日 02:46
> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9521 <draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve-13> for
> your review
> > Approve from my side as well.
> >
> > Sam
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> On Jan 2, 2024, at 9:55 AM, Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> 
> >> Hi Megan,
> >> thank you for your kind reminder. Please note that I also approve all
> the proposed changes.
> >>
> >> Best wishes for a happy New Year!
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Greg
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 9:49 AM Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >> Jeff,
> >>
> >> Apologies for the delayed reply.  We have updated the AUTH48 status
> page to reflect your
> >> approval.
> >>
> >> Please note that we will assume your assent to any further changes
> submitted
> >> by your coauthors unless we hear otherwise at that time.
> >>
> >> The AUTH48 status page is viewable at:
> >>
> >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9521
> >>
> >> Thank you.
> >>
> >> RFC Editor/mf
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Dec 19, 2023, at 7:20 PM, Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi Megan,
> >> >
> >> > I approve the changes.
> >> >
> >> > Cheers,
> >> > Jeff
> >> >
> >> >> On Dec 19, 2023, at 18:04, [e-mail] wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> 
> >> >> Hi Megan,
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Thank you for the proposed tweaks.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm fine with all the three options, and I prefer the first one.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Cheers,
> >> >>
> >> >> Xiao Min
> >> >>
> >> >> Original
> >> >> From: MeganFerguson <[e-mail]>
> >> >> To: 肖敏10093570;Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>;
> >> >> Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;Santosh P
> K <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]
> >;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> >> >> Date: 2023年12月20日 01:35
> >> >> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9521 <draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve-13>
> for your review
> >> >> Xiao Min and Greg,
> >> >>
> >> >> Apologies if we added to the confusion!  This has been updated as
> discussed between the two of you.
> >> >> However, we feel one of the following further tweaks might make this
> text easier on the reader:
> >> >>
> >> >> Current:
> >> >> If the BFD packet is received with the value of the Your
> Discriminator field 0,.
> >> >>
> >> >> Perhaps:
> >> >> …with the value of the Your Discriminator field set to 0,…
> >> >> or
> >> >> …with a Your Discriminator field value of 0,…
> >> >> or
> >> >> If the Your Discriminator field of the BFD packet received has a
> value of 0,...
> >> >>
> >> >> Please let us know if one of the above is agreeable.
> >> >>
> >> >> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> >> >>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521.txt
> >> >>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521.pdf
> >> >>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521.html
> >> >>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521.xml
> >> >>
> >> >> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh):
> >> >>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521-diff.html
> (comprehensive diff)
> >> >>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521-auth48diff.html
> (AUTH48 changes only)
> >> >>
> >> >> Please contact us with any further updates/questions/comments you
> may have.
> >> >>
> >> >> We will await approvals from each of the parties listed on the
> AUTH48 status page prior to moving forward to publication.
> >> >>
> >> >> The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here:
> >> >>
> >> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9521
> >> >>
> >> >> Thank you.
> >> >>
> >> >> RFC Editor/mf
> >> >>
> >> >> > On Dec 18, 2023, at 6:09 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hi Megan,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thank you for the revision.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Considering the one rejected change, I propose one more editorial
> change as below.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Section #5.1
> >> >> > OLD:
> >> >> > a Your Discriminator equals to 0
> >> >> > NEW:
> >> >> > a Your Discriminator equal to 0
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Cheers,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Xiao Min
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Original
> >> >> > From: MeganFerguson <[e-mail]>
> >> >> > To: 肖敏10093570;Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>;
> >> >> > Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]
> >;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> >> >> > Date: 2023年12月19日 05:38
> >> >> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9521
> <draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve-13> for your review
> >> >> > Xiao and Greg,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thank you for your replies. We have updated the document as
> requested with the exception of the following:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > Section #4.1
> >> >> > > OLD:
> >> >> > > a Your Discriminator equal to 0
> >> >> > > NEW:
> >> >> > > a Your Discriminator equals to 0
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > Please review this request as the suggested text introduces a
> subject/verb agreement error.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > We have posted the updated files below.  Please review carefully
> as we do not make updates once the document is published as an RFC.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> >> >> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521.txt
> >> >> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521.pdf
> >> >> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521.html
> >> >> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521.xml
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh):
> >> >> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521-diff.html
> (comprehensive diff)
> >> >> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521-auth48diff.html
> (AUTH48 changes only)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Please contact us with any further updates/questions/comments you
> may have.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > We will await approvals from each of the parties listed on the
> AUTH48 status page prior to moving forward to publication.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9521
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thank you.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > RFC Editor/mf
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > On Dec 18, 2023, at 1:29 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Dear RFC Editor,
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Thanks for your efforts.
> >> >> > > Please see inline my answers to your questions and several
> proposed editorial changes.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Original
> >> >> > > From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> >> >> > > To: 肖敏10093570;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>;
> >> >> > > Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]
> >;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> >> >> > > Date: 2023年12月16日 01:10
> >> >> > > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9521
> <draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve-13> 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] Please note that 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:
> >> >> > > BFD for Geneve
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Current:
> >> >> > > Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for Generic Network
> >> >> > > Virtualization Encapsulation (Geneve)
> >> >> > > -->
> >> >> > > [XM]>>> Agreed.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that
> appear in
> >> >> > >      the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search.
> -->
> >> >> > > [XM]>>> NVE, VAP, VNI.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > 3) <!--[rfced] For clarity, may we rephrase the run-on sentence
> below?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Original:
> >> >> > > This document supports establishing multiple BFD sessions
> between the
> >> >> > > same pair of NVEs, each BFD session over a pair of VAPs residing
> in
> >> >> > > the same pair of NVEs, there SHOULD be a mechanism to control the
> >> >> > > maximum number of such sessions that can be active at the same
> time.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Perhaps:
> >> >> > > This document supports establishing multiple BFD sessions
> between the
> >> >> > > same pair of NVEs.  For each BFD session over a pair of VAPs
> residing
> >> >> > > in the same pair of NVEs, there SHOULD be a mechanism to control
> the
> >> >> > > maximum number of such sessions that can be active at the same
> time.
> >> >> > > -->
> >> >> > > [XM]>>> Agreed.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > 4) <!-- [rfced] We see a number of uses of the "/" character
> separating
> >> >> > >      terms in this document.  Please review and let us know if we
> >> >> > >      should adjust any of these instances to "and/or", "and", or
> "or"
> >> >> > >      for clarity and ease of the reader.
> >> >> > > -->
> >> >> > > [XM]>>> I don't see a need to adjust any of them. I believe it's
> common to say Ethernet/IP/UDP, Ethernet/IP, IP/UDP, etc.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > 5) <!-- [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.
> >> >> > > -->
> >> >> > > [XM]>>> I don't see a need for any changes. Thank you for the
> reminder.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > [XM]>>> Besides the above answers to your questions, I propose a
> few editorial changes as below.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Section #1
> >> >> > > OLD:
> >> >> > > For simplicity, NVE is used
> >> >> > > NEW:
> >> >> > > For simplicity, a NVE is used
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Section #4
> >> >> > > OLD:
> >> >> > > TTL or Hop Limit:  These MUST be set to 255
> >> >> > > NEW:
> >> >> > > TTL or Hop Limit:  The TTL for IPv4 or Hop Limit for IPv6 MUST
> be set to 255
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Section #4
> >> >> > > OLD:
> >> >> > > Geneve specification [RFC8926] depending on
> >> >> > > NEW:
> >> >> > > Geneve specification ([RFC8926]) depending on
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Section #4.1
> >> >> > > OLD:
> >> >> > > N-to-1 mapping between a VAP and a VNI
> >> >> > > NEW:
> >> >> > > N-to-1 mapping between VAPs and VNIs
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Section #5
> >> >> > > OLD:
> >> >> > > TTL or Hop Limit:  These MUST be set to 255
> >> >> > > NEW:
> >> >> > > TTL or Hop Limit:  The TTL for IPv4 or Hop Limit for IPv6 MUST
> be set to 255
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Best Regards,
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Xiao Min
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Thank you.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > RFC Editor/kf/mf
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > *****IMPORTANT*****
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Updated 2023/12/15
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > 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/rfc9521.xml
> >> >> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521.html
> >> >> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521.pdf
> >> >> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521.txt
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Diff file of the text:
> >> >> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521-diff.html
> >> >> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521-rfcdiff.html
> (side by side)
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Diff of the XML:
> >> >> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521-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/rfc9521.original.v2v3.xml
>
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format
> updates
> >> >> > > only:
> >> >> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9521.form.xml
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Tracking progress
> >> >> > > -----------------
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
> >> >> > >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9521
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Please let us know if you have any questions.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Thank you for your cooperation,
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > RFC Editor
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > --------------------------------------
> >> >> > > RFC9521 (draft-ietf-nvo3-bfd-geneve-13)
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Title            : BFD for Geneve
> >> >> > > Author(s)        : X. Min, G. Mirsky, S. Pallagatti, J.
> Tantsura, S. Aldrin
> >> >> > > WG Chair(s)      : Matthew Bocci, Sam Aldrin
> >> >> > > Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>