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

[Shwetha <[e-mail]>]

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
>