Hi Yuji and other authors, Yuji - We updated your affiliation and contact information per your request. The updates are reflected in the files below. We also marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9837).
All - We have now received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete. We will move this document forward in the publication process at this time. Thank you for your attention and guidance during AUTH48! — FILES (please refresh) — Updated XML file: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9837.xml Updated output files: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9837.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9837.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9837.html Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9837-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9837-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff files showing all changes: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9837-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9837-rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9837-alt-diff.html (diff showing changes where text is moved or deleted) For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9837 Best regards, RFC Editor/rv > On Aug 12, 2025, at 1:00 AM, Yuji Kamite <y.kam...@ntt.com> wrote: > > Hi Rebecca and all, > > I also checked the document and approve it. Thank you. > One quick thing -- my company name changed last month. > So please change my affiliation/contact information as below (e-mail is not > changed though): > > Yuji Kamite > NTT DOCOMO BUSINESS > Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo > Japan > Email: y.kam...@ntt.com > > > Best regards, > -Yuji > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rebecca VanRheenen <rvanrhee...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2025 12:03 PM > To: Jalil, Luay <luay.ja...@verizon.com>; Ron Bonica > <rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org>; adr...@olddog.co.uk; > x...@cernet.edu.cn; Yuji Kamite（上手祐治） <y.kam...@ntt.com>; > luay.ja...@one.verizon.com > Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; 6man-...@ietf.org; > 6man-cha...@ietf.org; bob.hin...@gmail.com; ek.i...@gmail.com; > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > Subject: Re: [E] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9837 <draft-ietf-6man-vpn-dest-opt-11> for > your review > > Hi Luay, > > We marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9837). > > Once we receive approval from Yuji, we can move this document forward. > > Thank you! > RFC Editor/rv > > > >> On Aug 11, 2025, at 10:13 AM, Jalil, Luay <luay.ja...@verizon.com> wrote: >> >> I approve this text >> >> Thanks & Regards, >> Luay >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 1:27 PM Rebecca VanRheenen >> <rvanrhee...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: >> Hi Adrian and other authors, >> >> Adrian - Thank you for addressing all of our questions. We have updated the >> document accordingly. >> >> All - Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do >> not make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any >> further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form. >> We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the >> publication process. >> >> — FILES (please refresh) — >> >> Updated XML file: >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor. >> org_authors_rfc9837.xml&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6_ >> _0PomBTQ&r=7yfE7g9ZjpRzGkNuVTidj5c7H2bMIhCLfUwl8WcELSY&m=gO9zA0ffe2t_4 >> NV2T2AksRFFs-YSXO8LuLCC31R30lYa6cZ2CONXjAvMbLE5fZOh&s=31koYsVpRkIZcHhh >> s7Rw-qt9zfswAdKgXPDRAn2-RqU&e= >> >> Updated output files: >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9837.txt&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=7yfE7g9ZjpRzGkNuVTidj5c7H2bMIhCLfUwl8WcELSY&m=gO9zA0ffe2t_4NV2T2AksRFFs-YSXO8LuLCC31R30lYa6cZ2CONXjAvMbLE5fZOh&s=47Jmyl9yzLvGBqO14yHzGYEPKdgB0iUlFgeBXjMMmQo&e= >> >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9837.pdf&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=7yfE7g9ZjpRzGkNuVTidj5c7H2bMIhCLfUwl8WcELSY&m=gO9zA0ffe2t_4NV2T2AksRFFs-YSXO8LuLCC31R30lYa6cZ2CONXjAvMbLE5fZOh&s=_cmMp_eGiwaDz1k8vNf3JZOi1nontw_uKKg69pJt7Bk&e= >> >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor. >> org_authors_rfc9837.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6 >> __0PomBTQ&r=7yfE7g9ZjpRzGkNuVTidj5c7H2bMIhCLfUwl8WcELSY&m=gO9zA0ffe2t_ >> 4NV2T2AksRFFs-YSXO8LuLCC31R30lYa6cZ2CONXjAvMbLE5fZOh&s=dMRfft8g4gXIYtq >> dC4FERBb39rL7vOpLYRIM5eHGaWA&e= >> >> Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48: >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9837-2Dauth48diff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=7yfE7g9ZjpRzGkNuVTidj5c7H2bMIhCLfUwl8WcELSY&m=gO9zA0ffe2t_4NV2T2AksRFFs-YSXO8LuLCC31R30lYa6cZ2CONXjAvMbLE5fZOh&s=1W6czM0dLiWFlpmxXvautxJj6mriLi80cUWrIclMJKU&e= >> >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor. >> org_authors_rfc9837-2Dauth48rfcdiff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UH >> pJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=7yfE7g9ZjpRzGkNuVTidj5c7H2bMIhCLfUwl8WcELS >> Y&m=gO9zA0ffe2t_4NV2T2AksRFFs-YSXO8LuLCC31R30lYa6cZ2CONXjAvMbLE5fZOh&s >> =TVbTpRj5cLe5BmZqvCVaBizTOM-NlG8Tm6GBRwG7vw8&e= (side by side) >> >> Diff files showing all changes: >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9837-2Ddiff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=7yfE7g9ZjpRzGkNuVTidj5c7H2bMIhCLfUwl8WcELSY&m=gO9zA0ffe2t_4NV2T2AksRFFs-YSXO8LuLCC31R30lYa6cZ2CONXjAvMbLE5fZOh&s=f7hmZTD7zCqSYtS8Qo2zSffT55mLWr2OPGrdqhweJAA&e= >> >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9837-2Drfcdiff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=7yfE7g9ZjpRzGkNuVTidj5c7H2bMIhCLfUwl8WcELSY&m=gO9zA0ffe2t_4NV2T2AksRFFs-YSXO8LuLCC31R30lYa6cZ2CONXjAvMbLE5fZOh&s=J8HLXR-mraB-riDjCzyltZ5Fbv-N6wpi0w10b78f0rE&e= >> (side by side) >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor. >> org_authors_rfc9837-2Dalt-2Ddiff.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJl >> Pps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=7yfE7g9ZjpRzGkNuVTidj5c7H2bMIhCLfUwl8WcELSY&m >> =gO9zA0ffe2t_4NV2T2AksRFFs-YSXO8LuLCC31R30lYa6cZ2CONXjAvMbLE5fZOh&s=1W >> owecHEKNW6iy-9SKhh-fnBH_POxjavgv6S7ITwsb4&e= (diff showing changes >> where text is moved or deleted) >> >> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor. >> org_auth48_rfc9837&d=DwIFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0Pom >> BTQ&r=7yfE7g9ZjpRzGkNuVTidj5c7H2bMIhCLfUwl8WcELSY&m=gO9zA0ffe2t_4NV2T2 >> AksRFFs-YSXO8LuLCC31R30lYa6cZ2CONXjAvMbLE5fZOh&s=ss_fyRM6UnkMgeJnQtaPT >> b6sVXWFS62ymwHdmJN_r_U&e= >> >> Thank you, >> >> RFC Editor/rv >> >> >> >>> On Aug 8, 2025, at 7:18 AM, Ron Bonica >>> <rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >>> >>> Folks, >>> >>> I defer to Adrian on all points. He is a native speaker of English. I speak >>> only American. >>> >>> Ron >>> >>> >>> Juniper Business Use Only >>> From: Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk> >>> Sent: Friday, August 8, 2025 5:20 AM >>> To: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; Ron >>> Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>; x...@cernet.edu.cn >>> <x...@cernet.edu.cn>; y.kam...@ntt.com <y.kam...@ntt.com>; >>> luay.ja...@one.verizon.com <luay.ja...@one.verizon.com> >>> Cc: 6man-...@ietf.org <6man-...@ietf.org>; 6man-cha...@ietf.org >>> <6man-cha...@ietf.org>; bob.hin...@gmail.com <bob.hin...@gmail.com>; >>> ek.i...@gmail.com <ek.i...@gmail.com>; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org >>> <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> >>> Subject: RE: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9837 >>> <draft-ietf-6man-vpn-dest-opt-11> for your review [External Email. >>> Be cautious of content] >>> >>> >>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary*aside__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Ae-Fqk-UK1M6PbWK49f_lRu5SAO9yvxT4nagRabnlIaDeDRjmPOTjNARh5BhMsFcQr9cT66Je9rLsD3P0w$ >>>> ). >>>> >>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide >>>> /part2/*inclusive_language__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Ae-Fqk-UK1M6PbWK49f_lRu5SAO9yvxT4nagRabnlIaDeDRjmPOTjNARh5BhMsFcQr9cT66Je9rAh-eLIg$ >>>> > 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
