Carlos, Med (as AD), * Med, re: the lowercasing of the two SHOULDs, we await your reply to this mail from Carlos (15 June): https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/5OFvsUA8GkPDXCDGXC8LRyxWrjQ/
Thank you for your reply, Carlos. Please see the follow-ups below. The revised files are here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10014.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10014.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10014.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10014.xml This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10014-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10014-rfcdiff.html (side by side) This diff file shows the changes made during Final Review thus far: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10014-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10014-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) Re: #8, we added the sentence in Section 3.4. Please review. Current: 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". (The property of "Equal-Forwarding-Treatment" is referred to in [RFC9551] as "In-band OAM".) Re: #15 (Acknowledgements), removed duplicate as requested. FYI, we added a hyphen in "Huang-Feng" because of Alex's recent reply on this topic (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/cNQMWS7FtV75DRiiExd5Idx3m4E/). You wrote: > After implementing these updates on this email thread, please mark my > Approval on this document. > Approved. Your approval has been recorded. This page shows the Final Review status of your document: https://queue.rfc-editor.org/final-review/rfc10014 Thank you. Alice Russo RFC Production Center > On Jun 13, 2026, at 4:12 AM, Carlos Pignataro <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]
