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, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org 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. > --> > > > 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
