Authors, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!-- [rfced] Should the note in Section 3 of this document be in the <aside> element? The <aside> element is defined as "a container for content that is semantically less important or tangential to the content that surrounds it" (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside). Original: NOTE: For this experiment, the Option Type is set to '01011110', i.e., 0x5E. The highest-order two bits are set to 01 indicating that the required action by a destination node that does not recognize the option is to discard the packet. The third highest-order bit is set to 0 indicating that Option Data cannot be modified along the path between the packet's source and its destination. The remaining low- order bits are set to '11110' to indicate the single IPv6 Destination Option Type code point available in the registry for experimentation. --> 2) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We updated this sentence as follows to clarify "in the registry". We also moved "for experimentation" to earlier in the sentence. Let us know any concerns. Original: The remaining low- order bits are set to '11110' to indicate the single IPv6 Destination Option Type code point available in the registry for experimentation. Perhaps: The remaining low-order bits are set to '11110' to indicate the single IPv6 Destination Option Type code point available for experimentation in the "Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options" registry [V6MSG]. --> 3) <!-- [rfced] Would you like to update these list items to avoid repetition of "Defined in"? Or do you prefer the current? Original: The IPv6 header contains: * Version - Defined in [RFC8200]. MUST be equal to 6. * Traffic Class - Defined in [RFC8200]. * Flow Label - Defined in [RFC8200]. * Payload Length - Defined in [RFC8200]. * Next Header - Defined in [RFC8200]. * Hop Limit - Defined in [RFC8200]. * Source Address - Defined in [RFC8200]. Represents an interface on the ingress PE router. This address SHOULD be chosen according to guidance provided in [RFC6724]. * Destination Address - Defined in [RFC8200]. Represents an interface on the egress PE router. This address SHOULD be chosen according to guidance provided in [RFC6724]. The IPv6 Destination Options Extension Header contains: * Next Header - Defined in [RFC8200]. MUST identify the protocol of the customer data. * Hdr Ext Len - Defined in [RFC8200]. Perhaps (remove "Defined in"): The IPv6 header contains: * Version [RFC8200]. MUST be equal to 6. * Traffic Class [RFC8200] * Flow Label [RFC8200] * Payload Length [RFC8200] * Next Header [RFC8200] * Hop Limit [RFC8200] * Source Address [RFC8200]. Represents an interface on the ingress PE router. This address SHOULD be chosen according to guidance provided in [RFC6724]. * Destination Address [RFC8200]. Represents an interface on the egress PE router. This address SHOULD be chosen according to guidance provided in [RFC6724]. The IPv6 Destination Options Extension Header contains: * Next Header [RFC8200]. MUST identify the protocol of the customer data. * Hdr Ext Len [RFC8200] Or (include [RFC8200] in introductory text): The IPv6 header contains the following (all defined in [RFC8200]): * Version - MUST be equal to 6. * Traffic Class * Flow Label * Payload Length * Next Header * Hop Limit * Source Address - Represents an interface on the ingress PE router. This address SHOULD be chosen according to guidance provided in [RFC6724]. * Destination Address - Represents an interface on the egress PE router. This address SHOULD be chosen according to guidance provided in [RFC6724]. The IPv6 Destination Options Extension Header contains the following (both defined in [RFC8200]): * Next Header - MUST identify the protocol of the customer data. * Hdr Ext Len --> 4) <!-- [rfced] Terminology a) We see the following forms in the document. Should these be consistent? If so, please let us know which form is preferred. IPv6 VPN Service Option VPN Service Option Destination Options header IPv6 Destination Options Extension Header b) Please review "Destination Options" in this sentence. Is this correct, or should this be updated to "Destination Options headers" or "IPv6 Destination Options"? Original: It MAY also contain any legal combination of other Destination Options. c) We see the following forms in the document: IPv6 VPN Service Destination Option (5 instances, including in document title) VPN Service Destination Option (1 instance) The abstract notes that "The experimental IPv6 Destination Option is called the VPN Service Option." We see instances of "VPN Service Option" and "IPv6 Destination Option" throughout the document. Should instances of "IPv6 VPN Service Destination Option" be updated to "VPN Service Option"? Please review and let us know if any updates are needed for clarity. Original: IPv6 VPN Service Destination Option Perhaps: VPN Service Option d) We have updated the abbreviated title (appears in the running header at the top of each page in the pdf output) as follows. Let us know if any further updates are needed per the question above. Original: Svc. Dest. Opt. Updated: Service Destination Option Perhaps: VPN Service Option --> 5) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for the following abbreviations per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) Network Virtualization over Layer 3 (NVO3) Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) --> 6) <!-- [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. --> Thank you. RFC Editor/rv On Aug 7, 2025, at 8:42 PM, [email protected] wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/08/07 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/rfc9837.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9837.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9837.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9837.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9837-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9837-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Alt-diff of the text (allows you to more easily view changes where text has been deleted or moved): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9837-alt-diff.html Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9837-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9837 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC9837 (draft-ietf-6man-vpn-dest-opt-11) Title : The IPv6 VPN Service Destination Option Author(s) : R. Bonica, X. Li, A. Farrel, Y. Kamite, L. Jalil WG Chair(s) : Bob Hinden, Jen Linkova Area Director(s) : Erik Kline, Éric Vyncke -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
