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.
-->


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.
-->


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.

(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?

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.

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.]
-->


6) <!--[rfced] Please consider whether "dummy" would be more clear 
as "example" or "placeholder" or similar.

Original: the Dummy IPv6 Prefix
Original: A source-only IPv6 dummy address
-->


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.
-->


Thank you.

RFC Editor/ar



On Apr 22, 2025, at 4:11 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org 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

  *  rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (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).

  *  auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, 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, 
       auth48archive@rfc-editor.org 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 -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org

Reply via email to