On 12/09/2025 06:14, [email protected] wrote:
Authors,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary)
the following questions, which are also in the source file.
1) <!--[rfced] Please consider the following regarding the document title.
Thank you Alanna and Sandy - please see below for my response:
a) Please note that we have expanded DPLPMTUD in the title as shown below.
Please let us know any concerns.
Original:
Datagram PLPMTUD for UDP Options
Current:
Datagram Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery (DPLPMTUD) for UDP Options
Agree, please change this.
b) May we update the short title as follows for clarity? Note that this
appears in the header of the PDF output.
Original:
UDPO DPLPMTUD
Perhaps:
UDP Options with DPLPMTUD
-->
Agree, please change this.
2) <!-- [rfced] We have some questions about the following quoted text from
Section 3.2 of [RFC9085].
a) We note that the quoted text is incomplete. Would you like to include
the full sentence for context?
Original:
"Consequently, an application SHOULD either use the path MTU
information provided by the IP layer or implement Path MTU Discovery
(PMTUD)".
In Section 3.2 of [RFC8085]:
Consequently, an application SHOULD either use the path MTU
information provided by the IP layer or implement Path MTU Discovery
(PMTUD) itself [RFC1191] [RFC1981] [RFC4821] to determine whether the
path to a destination will support its desired message size without
fragmentation.
Happy for you to change this.
b) We have marked the text as a block quote. It currently appears as
follows:
| Consequently, an application SHOULD either use the path MTU
| information provided by the IP layer or implement Path MTU
| Discovery (PMTUD) ...
-->
OK.
3) <!--[rfced] To improve readability, may we update the parenthetical text
as follows?
Original:
When DPLPMTUD is implemented within the UDP transport service, the
DPLPMTUD state machine is responsible for sending probe packets to
determine a PLPMTU, as described in this document (and hence the
Maximum Packet Size (MPS), the largest size of application data block
that can be sent across a network path using a single datagram).
Perhaps:
When DPLPMTUD is implemented within the UDP transport service, the
DPLPMTUD state machine is responsible for sending probe packets to
determine a PLPMTU, as described in this document (hence, the
Maximum Packet Size (MPS), the largest size of application data block
that can be sent across a network path using a single datagram, is
used).
-->
Your suggestion reads slightly odd to me. I wonder if this is better:
When DPLPMTUD is implemented within the UDP transport service, the
DPLPMTUD state machine is responsible for sending probe packets to
determine a PLPMTU, as described in this document. This determines a
Maximum Packet Size (MPS), the largest size of application data block
that can be sent across a network path using a single datagram.
--
4) <!--[rfced] To improve readability, may we rephrase the latter part of
this sentence?
Original:
[RFC8899] requires a probe packet to elicit a positive
acknowledgement that the path has delivered a datagram of the
specific probed size and, therefore, when using
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options] a probe packet MUST include the REQ
Option.
Perhaps:
[RFC8899] requires a probe packet to elicit a positive
acknowledgement that the path has delivered a datagram of the
specific probed size; therefore, a probe packet MUST include the REQ
Option when using transport options for UDP [RFC9868].
-->
OK, your suggestion is good.
5) <!--[rfced] To clarify the citations and parenthetical text, may we
update this sentence as follows?
Original:
This validation
sends probe packets in the DPLPMTUD SEARCH_COMPLETE state to detect
black-holing of data (Section 5.2 of [RFC8899], Section 4.3 of
[RFC8899] defines a DPLPMTUD black-hole).
Perhaps A:
This validation
sends probe packets in the DPLPMTUD SEARCH_COMPLETE state to detect
black-holing of data (see Section 5.2 of [RFC8899]); Section 4.3 of
[RFC8899] defines a DPLPMTUD black hole).
Perhaps B:
This validation
sends probe packets in the DPLPMTUD SEARCH_COMPLETE state (Section 5.2
of [RFC8899]) to detect black-holing of data (Section 4.3 of
[RFC8899] defines a DPLPMTUD black-hole).
OK, B seems best, please update using *B*.
-->
6) <!--[rfced] As the same citation occurs twice in the same sentence, may
we make this more concise?
Original:
A probe packet used to validate the path MAY use either
"Probing using padding data" to construct a probe packet that does
not carry any application data (Section 4.1 of [RFC8899]) or "Probing
using application data and padding data", see Section 4.1 of
[RFC8899].
Perhaps:
A probe packet used to validate the path MAY use either
"Probing using padding data" to construct a probe packet that does
not carry any application data or "Probing using application data and
padding data"; see Section 4.1 of [RFC8899].
-->
OK, your suggestion is good.
7) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in this document
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).
-
All extra notes/comments can all be discarded at this stage.
8) <!-- [rfced] We note that this document uses "UDP Options", while RFC-to-be 9868
<draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options> uses "UDP options" (lowercase). Please review and let us know if these should be
made consistent. Perhaps lowercase for "UDP options" in general, but "Option" when referring to a specific
option (e.g., Response (RES) Option).
See<https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9868.html>.
-->
This document should be updated to become consistent with the RFC that
will define UDP options, please ammend this document to match the final
format used in the options specification.
9) <!--[rfced] Abbreviations
a) Both the expansion and the acronym for the following terms are used
throughout the document. Would you like to update to using the expansion
upon first usage and the acronym for the rest of the document
Maximum Packet Size (MPS)
"minimum configured PLPMTU (MIN_PLPMTU)
Yes - please provide this editorial update. These acronyms ought to be
understood by a reader.
b) To align with RFC 8899, we have updated the following abbreviations for
consistency. Please let us know any objections.
Datagram Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery (DPLPMTUD)
Path MTU Discovery (PMTUD)
-->
OK, please change.
10) <!-- [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.
For example, please consider whether "black hole" should be updated.
-->
No. I think this is a term that is an unambiguous term-of-art that is
widely used in industry.
Thank you.
Alanna Paloma and Sandy Ginoza
RFC Production Center
On Sep 11, 2025, at 10:11 PM,[email protected] wrote:
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2025/09/11
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
*[email protected] (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).
*[email protected], 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,
[email protected] 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/rfc9869.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9869
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC 9869 (draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-dplpmtud-15)
Title : Datagram PLPMTUD for UDP Options
Author(s) : G. Fairhurst, T. Jones
WG Chair(s) : Martin Duke, Zaheduzzaman Sarker
Area Director(s) : Gorry Fairhurst, Mike Bishop
Please ammend the draft RFC. I plan to check the rendered document in
detail after you complete this update.
Best wishes,
Gorry
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
