On Feb 18, 2025, at 2:59 AM, Benoit
Claise<benoit.claise=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
Dear IANA,
I reviewedhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9740-rfcdiff.html and all
changes look good.
On 2/18/2025 1:00 AM,rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote:
Authors,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48 (
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9740.html
and other formats), please resolve the following questions, which are also in
the XML file.
1) <!--[rfced] May the title be updated for readability as follows or otherwise?
Original:
Extended TCP Options and IPv6 Extension Headers IPFIX Information Elements
Perhaps:
New IPFIX Information Elements for TCP Options and IPv6 Extensions Headers
-->
That works for me.
2) <!--[rfced] FYI, this sentence has been rephrased to avoid the dangling
"IEs" at the end of the sentence. Please review. (One hyphen is actually
two hyphens within the document.)
Original:
This document specifies new IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
[RFC7011] Information Elements (IEs) to solve a set of issues
encountered with the specifications of ipv6ExtensionHeaders (to
export IPv6 extension headers) and tcpOptions (to export TCP options)
IEs [IANA-IPFIX].
Current:
This document specifies new IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
[RFC7011] Information Elements (IEs) to solve a set of issues
encountered with the specifications of two IEs -
ipv6ExtensionHeaders (to export IPv6 extension headers) and
tcpOptions (to export TCP options) [IANA-IPFIX].
-->
Good improvement
3) <!--[rfced] Please clarify the last sentence of this list item. It seems
similar to the first sentence; should it be removed? If it's not the
same (perhaps this was intended to distinguish between "specify" and
"discuss"), should it be a separate bullet point?
Original:
The specification of the ipv6ExtensionHeaders IPFIX IE (64) does not:
[...]
* Specify whether the exported values match the full enclosed values
or only up to a limit imposed by hardware or software (e.g.,
Section 1.1 of [RFC8883]). Note that some implementations may not
be able to export all observed extension headers in a Flow because
of a hardware or software limit (see, e.g.,
[I-D.ietf-6man-eh-limits]). The specification of the
ipv6ExtensionHeaders IE does not discuss whether it covers all
enclosed extension headers or only up to a limit.
Perhaps:
The specification of the ipv6ExtensionHeaders IPFIX IE (64) does not:
[...]
* Specify whether the exported values match the full enclosed values
or only up to a limit imposed by hardware or software (e.g.,
Section 1.1 of [RFC8883]). Note that some implementations may not
be able to export all observed extension headers in a Flow because
of a hardware or software limit (see, e.g., [EH-LIMITS]).
* Discuss whether it covers all enclosed extension headers or only
up to a limit.
-->
Yes.
4) <!--[rfced] May this be rephrased for conciseness and readability?
In particular, "aggregate extension headers length" reads oddly.
Original:
* Specify how to report extension header chains or aggregate
extension headers length.
Perhaps:
* Specify how to report chains or aggregate lengths of
extension headers.
Or (because "extension header chain" is a defined term):
* Specify how to report extension header chains or
aggregate lengths of extension headers.
This one above (extension header chain is a defined term)
-->
5) <!--[rfced] Regarding this defined term, may we change "chain" to "chains"?
It reads oddly as singular.
Original:
Flow with varying extension header chain: Refers to a Flow where
distinct extension header chains are observed.
Suggested:
Flow with varying extension header chains: Refers to a Flow where
distinct extension header chains are observed.
Yes.
Examples of usage are below. [This is not a comprehensive list.]
Original (Section 3.3):
Extension headers observed in a Flow with varying extension header
chain MUST NOT be grouped ...
Suggested:
Extension headers observed in a Flow with varying extension header
chains MUST NOT be grouped ...
yes.
Original (Section 3.6):
Each header chain length of a Flow with varying extension header
chain MUST be exported in a separate
ipv6ExtensionHeadersChainLength IE.
Suggested:
Each header chain length of a Flow with varying extension header
chains MUST be exported in a separate
ipv6ExtensionHeadersChainLength IE.
-->
Yes
6) <!--[rfced] Should "Desination Options header" be plural here?
Yes. Seehttps://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ipv6-parameters.xhtml
60 Destination Options for IPv6 [RFC8200]
Andhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8200.html#section-4.6
We ask because the other headers are preceded by "a"
and because of plural usage in the bulleted list that follows.
Original:
For example, if an IPv6
packet of a Flow includes a Hop-by-Hop Options header, a
Destination Options header, a Fragment header, and Destination
Options header, the ipv6ExtensionHeaderTypeCountList IE will
report:
Perhaps:
For example, if an IPv6
packet of a Flow includes a Hop-by-Hop Options header, a
Destination Options header, a Fragment header, and Destination
Options headers, the ipv6ExtensionHeaderTypeCountList IE will
report:
-->
7) <!--[rfced] Is the word "flags" necessary here? The phrase "the shared
TCP options flags" reads oddly and does not appear elsewhere in this
document. We note "TCP options flags" has appeared in
zero RFCs, and this document uses "a shared TCP option (Kind=253 or 254)
in a Flow" in Sections 4.2 and 4.3.
Background info
- TCP_FLAGS appears in RFC 3954
- It became tcpControlBits in RFC5102 and IANA
Original:
In order to optimize the use
of the reduced-size encoding in the presence of
tcpSharedOptionExID16List or tcpSharedOptionExID32List IEs, the
Exporter MUST NOT set to 1 the shared TCP options (Kind=253 or
254) flags of the tcpOptionsFull IE that is reported for the same
Flow.
Option A (if removing "flags"):
In order to optimize the use
of the reduced-size encoding in the presence of
tcpSharedOptionExID16List or tcpSharedOptionExID32List IEs, the
Exporter MUST NOT set to 1 the shared TCP options (Kind=253 or
254) of the tcpOptionsFull IE that is reported for the same Flow.
Option B (perhaps rephrase to retain "flags"):
In order to optimize the use
of the reduced-size encoding in the presence of
tcpSharedOptionExID16List or tcpSharedOptionExID32List IEs, the
Exporter MUST NOT set to 1 the flags of the shared TCP options (Kind=253
or 254) of the tcpOptionsFull IE that is reported for the same Flow.
-->
I believe I am fine with Option A but I would like to get Med's opinion here.
8) <!--[rfced] Regarding the figure titles, may the ordinal numbers
be removed as follows? The reason for "First Example" on Figure 1
is unclear. Also, we suggest removing the article ("A" / "An") for
conciseness and to match the title of Figure 7.
Original:
Figure 1: A First Example of EH/Bit Mappings in the ipv6ExtensionHeadersFull IE
Figure 2: A First Example of ipv6ExtensionHeadersFull IE with Reduced-size
Encoding
Figure 3: A Second Example of ipv6ExtensionHeadersFull IE with Reduced-size
Encoding
Figure 4: An Example of ipv6ExtensionHeadersFull IE Reported for an Extension
Header Chain
Figure 5: An Example of TCP Options / Bit Mappings in a tcpOptionsFull IE
Figure 6: An Example of tcpOptionsFull IE with Reduced-size Encdoing
Perhaps:
Figure 1: Example of EH/Bit Mappings in the ipv6ExtensionHeadersFull IE
Figure 2: Example A of ipv6ExtensionHeadersFull IE with Reduced-Size Encoding
Figure 3: Example B of ipv6ExtensionHeadersFull IE with Reduced-Size Encoding
Figure 4: Example of ipv6ExtensionHeadersFull IE Reported for an Extension
Header Chain
Figure 5: Example of TCP Options / Bit Mappings in a tcpOptionsFull IE
Figure 6: Example of tcpOptionsFull IE with Reduced-Size Encoding
-->
Ok.
9) <!--[rfced] Section 8.2: FYI, the name in the I-D and the IANA registry
did not match ("Type" missing in the I-D). We have updated
this document to match the IANA registry (and to match Section 3.1).
Please let us know if that is not what you intended.
Original: ipv6ExtensionHeader
Updated: ipv6ExtensionHeaderType
(to match 513 ipv6ExtensionHeaderType on
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix
and Section 3.1)
-->
good catch.
10) <!--[rfced] For the Descriptions in Table 3, would you like to make the
capitalization more consistent or leave as is? Title case is used for
some items; initial-word capitalization is used for others. (If there
are any changes, then we will ask IANA to update the registry accordingly.)
For examples:
Routing header (5) vs. Mobility Header (7)
Destination Options for IPv6 (0) vs.
Fragmentation header - first fragment (4)
-->
Yes for consistency.
Many thanks for your work.
Regards, Benoit
11) <!-- [rfced] 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.
RFC Editor/ar
On Feb 17, 2025,
rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org
wrote:
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2025/02/17
RFC Author(s):
--------------
Instructions for Completing AUTH48
Your document has now entered 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
available as listed in the FAQ (
https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/
).
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
*
rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org
(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).
*
auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
, which is a new archival mailing list
to preserve AUTH48 conversations; 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,
auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
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/rfc9740.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9740.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9740.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9740.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9740-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9740-rfcdiff.html
(side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9740-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9740
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC9740 (draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-18)
Title : Extended TCP Options and IPv6 Extension Headers IPFIX
Information Elements
Author(s) : M. Boucadair, B. Claise
WG Chair(s) : Henk Birkholz, Joe Clarke
Area Director(s) : Warren Kumari, Mahesh Jethanandani
