Hi Alice, Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of my notes on the proposed updates. I think that the informative reference to the document that is the basis for the IANA assignment of the new Dummy IPv6 Prefix is the appropriate type of reference.
Regards, Greg On Fri, May 2, 2025 at 11:17 AM Alice Russo <[email protected]> wrote: > Greg and Gunter (as AD)*, > > * Gunter, please review and let us know if you approve this change in > Section 2.1 (which is also shown in the diff files below). This is per > Greg's reply to #4 below. > > Original: > Requirement 2: The encapsulation of OAM control messages and data > packets in the underlay network MUST be indistinguishable from > each other from the underlay network IP forwarding point of view. > > Current: > Requirement 2: The encapsulation of OAM control messages and data > packets in the underlay network MUST be > indistinguishable. > > > Greg, > > Thank you for your reply. Re: #5, you wrote: > > > > Should a reference to draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd be added? > > GIM>> Thank you for pointing it out to me. Yes, I provide one option > below. > > > Should it be informative or normative? Also, what short name is good for > the reference? It has been added as informative and [P2MP-BFD] for now; we > will update it per your reply. (That document is currently in RFC-EDITOR > state.) Please let us know any further changes. > > Original: > For IPv6, the address MUST be > selected from the Dummy IPv6 Prefix for IPv6 *Dummy-IPv6-Prefix*. > > Current: > For IPv6, the address MUST be > selected from the Dummy IPv6 Prefix 100:0:0:1::/64 [P2MP-BFD]. > > > The revised files are here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772.xml > > This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by > side) > > We will wait to hear from you again and from your coauthors > before continuing the publication process. This page shows > the AUTH48 status of your document: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9772 > > Thank you. > RFC Editor/ar > > > On Apr 30, 2025, at 2:09 PM, Greg Mirsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Alice, > > thank you for your kind reminder. Please find my answers below tagged > GIM>>. > > > > Regards, > > Greg > > > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 11:12 AM Alice Russo < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Authors, > > > > This is a reminder that we await word from you regarding the questions > below and this document's readiness for publication as an RFC. The files > are here: > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772.pdf > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772.txt > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772.xml (source) > > > > Diff files of all changes from the approved Internet-Draft: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772-diff.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > > > This page shows the AUTH48 status of your document: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9772 > > > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor/ar > > > > > On Apr 22, 2025, at 4:11 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > 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"). > > > > > > Original: > > > Active OAM for use in Geneve > > > > > > Current: > > > Active Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) for Use in > > > Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation (Geneve) > > > --> > > > > > > > > > 2) <!--[rfced] Please clarify; is it possible that each endpoint > (rather than > > > the two endpoints together) is an interface of an NVE? If so, we > suggest > > > updating this sentence as follows. > > > > > > Original: > > > Active OAM messages in a > > > Geneve overlay network are exchanged between two Geneve tunnel > > > endpoints, which may be the tenant-facing interface of the Network > > > Virtualization Edge (NVE) or another device acting as a Geneve tunnel > > > endpoint. > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > Active OAM messages in a > > > Geneve overlay network are exchanged between two Geneve tunnel > > > endpoints; each endpoint may be the tenant-facing interface of the > Network > > > Virtualization Edge (NVE) or another device acting as a Geneve tunnel > > > endpoint. > > GIM>> Thank you for the proposed text, it is clearer. I agree with the > proposed update. > > > --> > > > > > > > > > 3) <!--[rfced] Should "follow the same overlay and transport path" be > plural > > > "paths"? > > > > > > Original: > > > Specifically, > > > the OAM test packets MUST be in-band with the monitored traffic > > > and follow the same overlay and transport path as packets carrying > > > data payloads in the forward direction, i.e., from the ingress > > > toward the egress endpoint(s) of the OAM test. > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > Specifically, > > > the OAM test packets MUST be in-band with the monitored traffic > > > and follow the same overlay and transport paths as packets > carrying > > > data payloads in the forward direction, i.e., from the ingress > > > toward the egress endpoint(s) of the OAM test. > > GIM>> Indeed, plural "paths" is correct here. I agree with the update. > > > --> > > > > > > > > > 4) <!--[rfced] How may "from the underlay network IP forwarding point > > > of view" be rephrased for clarity? > > > > > > Original: > > > Requirement 2: The encapsulation of OAM control messages and data > > > packets in the underlay network MUST be indistinguishable from > > > each other from the underlay network IP forwarding point of view. > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > Requirement 2: The encapsulation of OAM control messages and data > > > packets in the underlay network MUST be indistinguishable from > > > each other from the point of view of the forwarding in the IP > > > underlay network. > > GIM>> Perhaps removing "from the point of view" altogether as follows: > > Requirement 2: The encapsulation of OAM control messages and data > packets in the IP underlay network MUST be indistinguishable. > > > > > > (We note the phrase "the forwarding in the IP underlay network" is > used in > > > Section 2.2.) > > > --> > > > > > > > > > 5) <!--[rfced] Regarding Section 2.3, the IANA actions for > > > draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd are not yet complete, i.e., the > > > Dummy-IPv6-Prefix requested by draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd has not yet > been > > > assigned, so the text of this document has not been updated. > > > > > > Should a reference to draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd be added? > > GIM>> Thank you for pointing it out to me. Yes, I provide one option > below. > > > > > > We note that https://www.iana.org/performance/ietf-draft-status lists > > > draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd as waiting on authors since 22 Feb 2025. > > GIM>> I answered the outstanding question and removed that obstacle, so > things are in motion. > > > > > > Unless the text is changed to remove this prefix, this document > > > will remain in AUTH48 until the Dummy-IPv6-Prefix has been assigned. > > > > > > ORIGINAL: > > > Inner IP header: > > > > > > Destination IP: The IP address MUST be set to the loopback address > > > 127.0.0.1/32 for IPv4 version. For IPv6, the address MUST be > > > selected from the Dummy IPv6 Prefix for IPv6 *Dummy-IPv6-Prefix*. > > > A source-only IPv6 dummy address is used as the destination to > > > generate an exception and a reply message to the request message > > > received. > > > > > > [Note to RFC Editor: Please replace *Dummy-IPv6-Prefix* with the > > > actual value allocated (requested in draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd) in > > > IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry.] > > GIM>> With the reference: > > Destination IP: The IP address MUST be set to the loopback address > > 127.0.0.1/32 for IPv4 version. For IPv6, the address MUST be > > selected from the Dummy IPv6 Prefix for IPv6 *Dummy-IPv6-Prefix* > [I-D.ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd]. > > A source-only IPv6 dummy address is used as the destination to > > generate an exception and a reply message to the request message > > received. > > > --> > > > > > > > > > 6) <!--[rfced] Please consider whether "dummy" would be more clear > > > as "example" or "placeholder" or similar. > > > > > > Original: the Dummy IPv6 Prefix > > GIM>> I suggest we leave this as-is; that is the name of the prefix in > the IANA registry. > > > Original: A source-only IPv6 dummy address > > GIM>> Perhaps we can drop "dummy" in this case: > > A source-only IPv6 address is used as the destination to > > generate an exception and a reply message to the request message > > received. > > > --> > > > > > > > > > 7) <!-- [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. Updates of this nature > typically > > > result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. > > > > > > Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this > should > > > still be reviewed as a best practice. > > GIM>> It appears to me that we are clean on that. > > > --> > > > > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > RFC Editor/ar > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 2025, at 4:11 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > > > > > Updated 2025/04/22 > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > * [email protected] (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). > > > > > > * [email protected], 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, > > > [email protected] 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/rfc9772.xml > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772.html > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772.pdf > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772.txt > > > > > > Diff file of the text: > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772-diff.html > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772-rfcdiff.html (side by > side) > > > > > > Diff of the XML: > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772-xmldiff1.html > > > > > > > > > Tracking progress > > > ----------------- > > > > > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9772 > > > > > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > > > > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > > > > > RFC Editor > > > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > RFC9772 (draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam-16) > > > > > > Title : Active Operations, Administration, and > Maintenance (OAM) for Use in Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation > (Geneve) > > > Author(s) : G. Mirsky, S. Boutros, D. Black, S. Pallagatti > > > WG Chair(s) : Matthew Bocci, Sam Aldrin > > > Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter Van de Velde > > > > > > >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
