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

[[e-mail]]

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)
-->


2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the
title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search.
-->


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. 
-->


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: ...
-->


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.
-->


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/).
-->


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
      [...]
-->


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
-->


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.
-->


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.
-->


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