Thanks, Alice! I meant to send this before —> Just to be explicit and clear, I follow Med’s lead as he recalls the discussion that led us to the SHOULDs.
And while my personal preference is to lowercase them and remove the 2119 text, as I feel this BCP ought to not mandate, same as the previous RFC on this same BCP, I am happy with either approach and outcome. All the other changes look great, with one further request if not too problematic or late: OLD: Carlos Pignataro Blue Fern Consulting United States of America Email: [email protected] NEW: Carlos Pignataro Blue Fern Consulting United States of America / Spain Email: [email protected], [email protected] Best, Carlos. > On Jun 18, 2026, at 12:17 AM, Alice Russo <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]
