Dear RFC Editor team, Thanks for your thorough work on this document! I agree with Carlos' suggestions and comments (including the one about changing the SHOULD to lowercase). Assuming these suggestions are implemented, I approve.
Thanks, Tal. On Sat, Jun 13, 2026 at 2:15 PM Carlos Pignataro <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]
