Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9268 <draft-ietf-6man-mtu-option-15> for your review

[Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>]

On 01/08/2022 18:55, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I reviewed the diff.   The majority of the changes look fine, but I have a few questions about two of them.
>
> -------------
>
> The style of the header diagram in Section 5. "IPv6 Minimum Path MTU Hop-by-Hop Option" was changed.   For example from the draft we submitted:
>
>      Option Type (see Section 4.2 of [RFC8200]):
>
>       BB     00   Skip over this option and continue processing.
>
>       C       1   Option data can change en route to the packet's final
>                   destination.
>
>       TTTTT 10000 Option Type assigned from IANA [IANA-HBH].
>
> as compared to what is shown in the new RFC editor version:
>
>   Option Type (see Section 4.2 of [RFC8200]):
>
>    BB         00
>
>                Skip over this option and continue processing.
>
>     C          1
>
>                Option data can change en route to the packet's final
>                destination.
>
>     TTTTT      10000
>
>                Option Type assigned from IANA [IANA-HBH].
>
>
> What we did matches the style in RFC8200.  Why was this change made?
>
> ---------
>
> I note that the reference to the IANA HBH option registry was changed from:
>
>     [IANA-HBH] "Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options",
>                <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ 
> ipv6-parameters.xhtml#ipv6-parameters-2>.
>
> to:
>
>     [IANA-HBH] IANA, "Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options",
>                <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/>.
>
> The original reference goes directly the specific Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options registry, where the new one goes to the general IPv6 parameter registry.   Why the change?
>
> Bob
>
>
>> On Jul 14, 2022, at 7:58 AM,[e-mail]  wrote:
>>
>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>
>> Updated 2022/07/14
>>
>> 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/rfc9268.xml
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268.html
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268.pdf
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268.txt
>>
>> Diff file of the text:
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268-diff.html
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268-rfcdiff.html  (side by side)
>>
>> Diff of the XML:
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268-xmldiff1.html
>>
>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
>> only:
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268.form.xml
>>
>>
>> Tracking progress
>> -----------------
>>
>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9268
>>
>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>>
>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>>
>> RFC Editor
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> RFC9268 (draft-ietf-6man-mtu-option-15)
>>
>> Title            : IPv6 Minimum Path MTU Hop-by-Hop Option
>> Author(s)        : B. Hinden, G. Fairhurst
>> WG Chair(s)      : Bob Hinden, Ole Trøan, Jen Linkova
>>
>> Area Director(s) : Erik Kline, Éric Vyncke
>>
>>
(1)

I'm also interested in whether Bob's questions result in chnages, but 
the rest looks OK, except for the following:


(2)

"Datagram Packetization Layer PMTU Discovery (DPLPMTUD)" isn't defined 
the first time it is used, so would this be better defined in the last 
line of section 4:


OLD (as modified by Ed):

datagram PLPMTUD [RFC8899]

NEW:

Datagram Packetization Layer PMTU Discovery (DPLPMTUD) [RFC8899]

...


If so, you can undo the change you suggested later to add this definition?

Gorry

**

**

*
*