Hi there, Definitive responses should come from Ron, but in the interest of moving things along, here are my thoughts...
> 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. > --> No, I don't think this is an aside. It is a "Nota Bene" type of "NOTE", not to be glossed over by the reader. > 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]. > --> The pedant in me (which will not die!) says that we don't do experimentation in the registry :-Z But, if you, as a native speaker, find this clearer, I don't object. > 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. [snip] > The IPv6 Destination Options Extension Header contains: > > * Next Header - Defined in [RFC8200]. MUST identify the protocol of > the customer data. [snip] > Perhaps (remove "Defined in"): > The IPv6 header contains: > > * Version [RFC8200]. MUST be equal to 6. [snip] > Or (include [RFC8200] in introductory text): > The IPv6 header contains the following (all defined in [RFC8200]): > > * Version - MUST be equal to 6. [snip] > The IPv6 Destination Options Extension Header contains the following > (both defined in [RFC8200]): > > * Next Header - MUST identify the protocol of > the customer data. [snip] I prefer this second formulation (with the two pieces of introductory text) > --> > 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 I see only one "IPv6 VPN Service option" [sic] which is in Section 7. Thus, please change that to "VPN Service Option". But there is also "IPv6 VPN Service Destination Option" The document title should remain as it is (qualifying the VPN Service Option to IPv6). The other cases (Sections 5 and 7) can all change to "VPN Service Option". > Destination Options header > IPv6 Destination Options Extension Header I only found one " IPv6 Destination Options Extension Header" (in Section 4). It serves as a sub-heading and contrasts with "IPv6 header" above the previous bullets, so I think it is good. On the other hand, please s/IPv6 header/IPv6 Header/ in that previous sub-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. Correct as written in the original. > 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 This overlaps with part of point a). I believe it is fully covered there, but please come back if it is unclear. > 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 Would ideally be "VPN Service Destination Option", but if that is too long, "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) All fine, but really is time to make these three "well known" :-) > --> > 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. I looked again, and found nothing of concern. > --> > > Thank you. No! Thank you. Best, Adrian -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
