Hi, Alice, Many thanks for this work, edits, and questions!
Please find some responses inline. Additionally, I’d like to request these updates: 14. Grammo OLD: While this document introduces new terminology, it is does not update or change the meaning of terminology found in existing RFCs. NEW: While this document introduces new terminology, it does not update or change the meaning of terminology found in existing RFCs. 15. Duplicate OLD: The authors wish to thank, chronologically, Hesham Elbakoury, Michael Richardson, Stewart Bryant, Greg Mirsky, Med Boucadair, Loa Andersson, Thomas Graf, Alex Huang Feng, Xiao Min, Dhruv Dhody, Henk Birkholz, Alex Huang Feng, Tom Petch, Roni Even, Tim Chown, Marcus Ihlar, Med Boucadair, Benoit Claise, Chongfeng Xie, Robert Sparks, Kyle Rose, Mach Chen, Roman Danyliw, Gorry Fairhurst, Éric Vyncke, Andy Newton, Deb Cooley, Ketan Talaulikar, and Gunter Van de Velde for their thorough review and useful feedback comments that greatly improved this document. NEW: The authors wish to thank, chronologically, Hesham Elbakoury, Michael Richardson, Stewart Bryant, Greg Mirsky, Med Boucadair, Loa Andersson, Thomas Graf, Alex Huang Feng, Xiao Min, Dhruv Dhody, Henk Birkholz, Tom Petch, Roni Even, Tim Chown, Marcus Ihlar, Med Boucadair, Benoit Claise, Chongfeng Xie, Robert Sparks, Kyle Rose, Mach Chen, Roman Danyliw, Gorry Fairhurst, Éric Vyncke, Andy Newton, Deb Cooley, Ketan Talaulikar, and Gunter Van de Velde for their thorough review and useful feedback comments that greatly improved this document. 16: Carlos’ email contact OLD: Carlos Pignataro Blue Fern Consulting United States of America Email: [email protected], [email protected] NEW: Carlos Pignataro Blue Fern Consulting United States of America Email: [email protected] More inline > On Jun 12, 2026, at 11:35 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 > Correct > > 2. Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in > the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. > Suggested keywords: OAM, in-band, out-of-band, path-congruent, active OAM, passive OAM, hybrid OAM, in-data-packet, forwarding treatment > > 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. > No. We use “Alternate Marking” as a noun, “Alternate-Marking” as adjective. Same as RFC9341 ("Indeed, Alternate Marking can be)”, "that Service Providers using Alternate Marking must do”, "Alternate-Marking Method”, "Alternate-Marking technique”.) Please keep as is. > > 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. Option B > > > 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. > Please rename section 3.3 to be consistent with 3.4 and others OLD: 3.3. Path Followed OAM NEW: 3.3. Path-Congruent OAM > > 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. > Accepted. > > 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. > Yes, for all instances. > > 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? Yes, pelase. > > 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? Correct. Please update the 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". > Yes. > > 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.) Because of our review of the draft, that text was removed: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-raw-architecture-26&url2=draft-ietf-raw-architecture-27&difftype=--html Please remove the sentence "[RFC9912] uses similar text.” And associated reference. > > 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. No inclusive language concerns identified. Thanks! Carlos. > > 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
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
