Hi, Alice, I tend to prefer removing those instances and use lowercase.
But I leave this decision to Adrian and Tal. Alice, After implementing these updates on this email thread, please mark my Approval on this document. Approved. Thanks, Carlos. > On Jun 13, 2026, at 12:23 AM, Alice Russo <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]
