Thank you Alice! And apologies for the flip-flop! I appreciate you trying. In that case, could we please revert back to
Carlos Pignataro Blue Fern Consulting United States of America Email: [email protected] Thanks, Carlos. > On Jun 18, 2026, at 7:07 PM, Alice Russo <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]
