Authors, An additional question. re: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10014.html#section-3.7
13. 'SHOULD' is used twice in this document. Do you prefer to add the typical keywords paragraph and the references to [RFC2119] and [RFC8174], or remove the 2 instances? Thank you. Alice Russo RFC Production Center > On Jun 12, 2026, at 2:35 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > Authors, > > While reviewing this document during Final Review, please resolve > (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file. > > 1. This document will become part of BCP 161 because it updates RFC 6291. > If this is not correct (i.e., it should be assigned a new BCP number), please > let us know. > > See the complete list of BCPs here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp-index.txt > > > 2. Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in > the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. > > > 3. We note that [RFC9341] uses "Alternate-Marking" rather than > "Alternate Marking". Should the hyphen be added here? > > Current: > Another example of "Hybrid Type I OAM" that is also "In-Data-Packet > OAM" is Alternate Marking [RFC9341], when applied to data packets of a > single stream. > > > 4. For clarity, what does "allowing for packet loss computation" refer to? > > Original: > Instead, OAM > packets are used for carrying information about observed network > characteristics, namely user packet counter values, allowing for > packet loss computation. > > Option A (if characteristics allow for the computation): > Instead, OAM > packets are used for carrying information about observed network > characteristics (namely, user packet counter values) allowing for > packet loss computation. > > Option B (if values allow for the computation): > Instead, OAM > packets are used for carrying information about observed network > characteristics - namely, user packet counter values that allow for > packet loss computation. > > > 5. For clarity, should "Path Followed OAM" be "Path-Followed OAM" > or "Path-Following OAM"? This term has not appeared in any RFCs, and it > appears only once in this document. > > > 6. FYI, we added hyphens to the section title to make > "3.4. Packet-Forwarding-Treatment OAM" > similar to usage of "Equal-Forwarding-Treatment OAM" and > "Different-Forwarding-Treatment OAM" in this document. > Please let us know if you prefer otherwise. > > > 7. For readability, may "forwarding (e.g., QoS) treatment" be > changed to "forwarding treatment (e.g., QoS)"? There are 4 instances > in this document. For example: > > Original: > Equal-Forwarding-Treatment OAM: > The OAM packets receive the same forwarding (e.g., QoS) treatment > as user data packets. > > Perhaps: > Equal-Forwarding-Treatment OAM: > The OAM packets receive the same forwarding treatment (e.g., QoS) > as user data packets. > > > 8. Section 3.4: To make it clear to the reader why the > definition of "In-band OAM" is being quoted here, would you like > to add a sentence (similar to that in Appendix A) here as well? > > In other words, the quote is from the definition for "In-band OAM" > in Section 1.1 of [RFC9551], and the mapping is explained in Appendix A: > The property of "Equal-Forwarding-Treatment" is referred to in > [RFC9551] as "In-band OAM". > > Original: > An example of "Equal-Forwarding-Treatment OAM" is presented in > [RFC9551] in the context of Deterministic Networking (DetNet) OAM: > "it traverses the same set of links and interfaces receiving the same > > QoS and Packet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Functions > > (PREOF) treatment as the monitored DetNet flow". > > > 9. For [P4-INT-2.1], may the provided URL be replaced? The URL provided > (https://p4.org/p4-spec/docs/INT_v2_1.pdf) is 404. We have found the > following URL, > which appears to match the information in the reference: > https://p4.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/53/p4-spec/docs/INT_v2_1.pdf > Is this the correct updated URL? > > > 10. How may this be rephrased to avoid the repetition of > "similar uses still use"? Does "documents" convey the intended meaning? > > Original: > Other similar uses, including [P4-INT-2.1], still use > variations of "in-band", "in band", or "inband". > > Perhaps: > Other similar documents, including [P4-INT-2.1], still use > variations of "in-band", "in band", or "inband". > > > 11. Does RFC 9912 (which was draft-ietf-raw-architecture) > still contain similar text? If not, please provide updated text. > (We were not able to identify the similar text.) > > Current: > Similarly, the property of "Different- > Forwarding-Treatment OAM" can be found in the following definition in > [RFC9551]: "Out-of-band OAM: an active OAM method whose path through > the DetNet domain may not be topologically identical to the path of > the monitored DetNet flow, its test packets may receive different QoS > and/or PREOF treatment, or both." [RFC9912] uses similar text. > > > 12. 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. > > Alice Russo > RFC Production Center > > > On Jun 12, 2026, [email protected] wrote: > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > RFC Author(s): > -------------- > > Final Review for RFC-to-be 10014 <draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization> > > Your document is now available for Final Review (previously 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; > see the Unavailable Authors section > (https://authors.ietf.org/rfc-publication-process#unavailable-authors). > > 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 an archival mailing list > to preserve discussion about the document while in the RPC editorial > queue; 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/rfc10014.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10014.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10014.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10014.txt > > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10014-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10014-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff of the XML: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10014-xmldiff1.html > > > Tracking progress > ----------------- > > Details on the status of your Final Review are here: > https://queue.rfc-editor.org/final-review/rfc10014/ > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > > -------------------------------------- > RFC 10014 (draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization) > > Title : Guidelines for Characterizing the Term "OAM" > Author(s) : C. Pignataro, > A. Farrel, > T. Mizrahi > WG Chair(s) : Joe Clarke, Benoît Claise > Area Director(s) : Mohamed Boucadair, Mahesh Jethanandani > Thank you. Alice Russo RFC Production Center -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
