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

[Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>]

Hi Bob and Gorry,

Thank you for your replies. We have addressed Bob’s questions below and updated  the text to "Datagram Packetization Layer PMTU Discovery (DPLPMTUD)” at the end of Sections 2 and 4. 

Note that we have 12 remaining queries (sent on 7/14/2022). Please review and send us responses to those queries, along with any further updates you may have. 

>> 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?

The original xml contained this text formatted within <artwork>; however, this is semantically incorrect, so we converted it to be a definitions list. We are unable to apply spacing in a definitions list in the same way that it appeared within <artwork>, but may we format the text as follows?

    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].

>> ---------
>> 
>> 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?

We updated the reference per input from IANA. IANA recommended that RFCs point to the top-most registry since they are considered stable; they prefer that the direct URLs to specific registries on a page not be used.


The files have been posted here (please refresh):
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268.xml
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268.txt
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268.html
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268.pdf

The relevant diff files have been posted here:
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268-rfcdiff.html (comprehensive diff with changes side by side)
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9268-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes)

Please review the document carefully.  Note that we do not make changes once a document is published as an RFC.

We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status page below prior to moving this document forward in the publication process.

For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9268

Thank you,
RFC Editor/ap

> On Aug 1, 2022, at 11:29 AM, Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
>