Authors, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file.
1) <!--[rfced] Please consider the following regarding the document title. a) Please note that we have expanded DPLPMTUD in the title as shown below. Please let us know any concerns. Original: Datagram PLPMTUD for UDP Options Current: Datagram Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery (DPLPMTUD) for UDP Options b) May we update the short title as follows for clarity? Note that this appears in the header of the PDF output. Original: UDPO DPLPMTUD Perhaps: UDP Options with DPLPMTUD --> 2) <!-- [rfced] We have some questions about the following quoted text from Section 3.2 of [RFC9085]. a) We note that the quoted text is incomplete. Would you like to include the full sentence for context? Original: "Consequently, an application SHOULD either use the path MTU information provided by the IP layer or implement Path MTU Discovery (PMTUD)". In Section 3.2 of [RFC8085]: Consequently, an application SHOULD either use the path MTU information provided by the IP layer or implement Path MTU Discovery (PMTUD) itself [RFC1191] [RFC1981] [RFC4821] to determine whether the path to a destination will support its desired message size without fragmentation. b) We have marked the text as a block quote. It currently appears as follows: | Consequently, an application SHOULD either use the path MTU | information provided by the IP layer or implement Path MTU | Discovery (PMTUD) ... --> 3) <!--[rfced] To improve readability, may we update the parenthetical text as follows? Original: When DPLPMTUD is implemented within the UDP transport service, the DPLPMTUD state machine is responsible for sending probe packets to determine a PLPMTU, as described in this document (and hence the Maximum Packet Size (MPS), the largest size of application data block that can be sent across a network path using a single datagram). Perhaps: When DPLPMTUD is implemented within the UDP transport service, the DPLPMTUD state machine is responsible for sending probe packets to determine a PLPMTU, as described in this document (hence, the Maximum Packet Size (MPS), the largest size of application data block that can be sent across a network path using a single datagram, is used). --> 4) <!--[rfced] To improve readability, may we rephrase the latter part of this sentence? Original: [RFC8899] requires a probe packet to elicit a positive acknowledgement that the path has delivered a datagram of the specific probed size and, therefore, when using [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options] a probe packet MUST include the REQ Option. Perhaps: [RFC8899] requires a probe packet to elicit a positive acknowledgement that the path has delivered a datagram of the specific probed size; therefore, a probe packet MUST include the REQ Option when using transport options for UDP [RFC9868]. --> 5) <!--[rfced] To clarify the citations and parenthetical text, may we update this sentence as follows? Original: This validation sends probe packets in the DPLPMTUD SEARCH_COMPLETE state to detect black-holing of data (Section 5.2 of [RFC8899], Section 4.3 of [RFC8899] defines a DPLPMTUD black-hole). Perhaps A: This validation sends probe packets in the DPLPMTUD SEARCH_COMPLETE state to detect black-holing of data (see Section 5.2 of [RFC8899]); Section 4.3 of [RFC8899] defines a DPLPMTUD black hole). Perhaps B: This validation sends probe packets in the DPLPMTUD SEARCH_COMPLETE state (Section 5.2 of [RFC8899]) to detect black-holing of data (Section 4.3 of [RFC8899] defines a DPLPMTUD black-hole). --> 6) <!--[rfced] As the same citation occurs twice in the same sentence, may we make this more concise? Original: A probe packet used to validate the path MAY use either "Probing using padding data" to construct a probe packet that does not carry any application data (Section 4.1 of [RFC8899]) or "Probing using application data and padding data", see Section 4.1 of [RFC8899]. Perhaps: A probe packet used to validate the path MAY use either "Probing using padding data" to construct a probe packet that does not carry any application data or "Probing using application data and padding data"; see Section 4.1 of [RFC8899]. --> 7) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in this document should be in the <aside> element. It 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). --> 8) <!-- [rfced] We note that this document uses "UDP Options", while RFC-to-be 9868 <draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options> uses "UDP options" (lowercase). Please review and let us know if these should be made consistent. Perhaps lowercase for "UDP options" in general, but "Option" when referring to a specific option (e.g., Response (RES) Option). See <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9868.html>. --> 9) <!--[rfced] Abbreviations a) Both the expansion and the acronym for the following terms are used throughout the document. Would you like to update to using the expansion upon first usage and the acronym for the rest of the document Maximum Packet Size (MPS) "minimum configured PLPMTU (MIN_PLPMTU) b) To align with RFC 8899, we have updated the following abbreviations for consistency. Please let us know any objections. Datagram Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery (DPLPMTUD) Path MTU Discovery (PMTUD) --> 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. For example, please consider whether "black hole" should be updated. --> Thank you. Alanna Paloma and Sandy Ginoza RFC Production Center On Sep 11, 2025, at 10:11 PM, [email protected] wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/09/11 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/rfc9869.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9869 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC 9869 (draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-dplpmtud-15) Title : Datagram PLPMTUD for UDP Options Author(s) : G. Fairhurst, T. Jones WG Chair(s) : Martin Duke, Zaheduzzaman Sarker Area Director(s) : Gorry Fairhurst, Mike Bishop -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
