Ron, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!-- [rfced] May we update "between IP Router Alert packets of interest and unwanted IP Router Alerts" as follows to improve readability? Original: In a nutshell, the IP Router Alert Option does not provide a universal mechanism to accurately and reliably distinguish between IP Router Alert packets of interest and unwanted IP Router Alerts. Perhaps: In a nutshell, the IP Router Alert Option does not provide a universal mechanism to accurately and reliably distinguish between IP Router Alert packets that are of interest and those that are unwanted. --> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please confirm that "may" in last sentence is correct. Or should it be "MAY" to correspond with "MAY" in the first sentence? Original: Protocols that use the Router Alert Option MAY continue to do so, even in future versions. However, new protocols that are standardized in the future MUST NOT use the Router Alert Option. Appendix A contains an exhaustive list of protocols that may continue to use the Router Alert Option. Perhaps: Protocols that use the Router Alert Option MAY continue to do so, even in future versions. However, new protocols that are standardized in the future MUST NOT use the Router Alert Option. Appendix A contains an exhaustive list of protocols that MAY continue to use the Router Alert Option. --> 3) <!-- [rfced] Informative reference RFC 3810 has been obsoleted by RFC 9777. We recommend replacing RFC 3810 with RFC 9777. However, if RFC 3810 must be referenced, we suggest mentioning RFC 9777 (e.g., RFC 3810 has been obsoleted by RFC 9777). See Section 4.8.6 in the RFC Style Guide (RFC 7322). --> 4) <!-- [rfced] Should "router alert" in this text in Table 1 be updated to "Router Alert Option"? Original: MPLS PING (Use of router alert deprecated) Perhaps: MPLS Ping (Use of Router Alert Option is deprecated) --> 5) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether the note in Section 3 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). Original: NOTE: Many routers maintain separation between forwarding and control plane hardware. The forwarding plane is implemented on high- performance Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASIC) and Network Processors (NP), while the control plane is implemented on general-purpose processors. Given this difference, the control plane is more susceptible to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) attack than the forwarding plane. --> 6) <!-- [rfced] Terminology a) We note inconsistencies in the terms listed below. We chose the latter form (i.e., capitalized "Option"). Please let us know if you prefer differently. Router Alert option Router Alert Option Note: The capitalized form with "Option" is used in RFCs 6398, 7506, and 9673 (and is more common in this document); the lowercase form with "option" is used in RFCs 8504 and 9288. b) We see the following forms used in the document. Are any updates needed, or are these okay as is? Router Alert Option IP Router Alert Option IPv6 Router Alert Option Hop-by-Hop Options header IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options header c) Should "Hop-by-Hop options" here be updated to "Hop-by-Hop Options header"? Original: One approach would be to deprecate the Router Alert option, because current usage beyond the local network appears to be limited, and packets containing Hop- by-Hop options are frequently dropped. Perhaps: One approach would be to deprecate the Router Alert Option, because current usage beyond the local network appears to be limited and packets containing the Hop- by-Hop Options header are frequently dropped. d) We updated "PING" to "Ping" per usage in RFCs 7506, 8029, and 9570. e) May we update "INTSERV" to either "Intserv" (RFCs 9522, 9064, and 7417) or "IntServ" (RFCs 9049 and 6007), both of which are more common in the RFC Series? --> 7) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for the following abbreviation(s) per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) --> 8) <!-- [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 Jun 12, 2025, at 10:31 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/06/12 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/rfc9805.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9805.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9805.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9805.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9805-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9805-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/rfc9805-alt-diff.html Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9805-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9805 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC9805 (draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-router-alert-13) Title : Deprecation Of The IPv6 Router Alert Option For New Protocols Author(s) : R. Bonica WG Chair(s) : Bob Hinden, Jen Linkova Area Director(s) : Erik Kline, Éric Vyncke -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
