Carlos, We have added the email address as requested.
Re: > United States of America / Spain FYI, although it's possible to force that to appear by using the postalLine element instead of the country element, the RPC prefers to use the country element to hold this data. That said, xml2rfc isn't able to handle the following (or two country elements) as input: <country>United States of America / Spain</country> It gives this warning: > Warning: Country lookup failed for <country>United States of America / > Spain</country>. Use --country-help to show recognized country names and > codes It generates an output file that does not contain the country line at all. So, the document remains with "United States of America". Please let us know if you would like any further changes (i.e., no country at all, or change to "Spain" only). Files are available at the URLs below. Re: > 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. Thank you for letting us know. We assume your approval still stands unless you let us know otherwise. Thank you. Alice Russo RFC Production Center -- This diff file shows only the most recent changes: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10014-lastrfcdiff.html For the rest of the files: 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 (source) 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 AUTH48 thus far: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10014-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10014-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) > On Jun 18, 2026, at 7:19 AM, Carlos Pignataro <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]
