Med, Thank you for your reply. We have updated the document accordingly.
Re: Section 6.2.2 > • I agree with the change in the first para of S6.2.2. However, please note > that the OLD text was echoing the content at > https://www.iana.org/assignments/tcp-parameters/tcp-parameters.xhtml#tcp-exids. > It is worth to report this to IANA. Thank you for pointing this out. I have CCed you on mail to IANA re: cap 'C' in one existing description ("Shared Memory Communications over RDMA protocol"). Re: Section 3.4 >> Re: #6 (Section 3.4), no update has been made. To clarify, the question is: >> should "Destination Options header" be "Destination Options headers" in this >> list? (The question was not about the word "Options".) > Ah. > No need to change: "Destination Options header" is right Benoit confirmed it's singular, so "a" has been added ("a Destination Options header), to be parallel with the other items in the list (all preceded by "a"). However, it is slightly odd with the plural "headers" in the bullet points that follow (e.g. "the occurrences of the Destination Options headers"). The revised files are here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9740.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9740.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9740.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9740.xml This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9740-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9740-rfcdiff.html (side by side) This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9740-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9740-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) This diff file shows only the changes since the last posted version: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9740-lastrfcdiff.html We will wait to hear from you and your coauthor again before continuing the publication process. This page shows the AUTH48 status of your document: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9740 Thank you. RFC Editor/ar > On Feb 24, 2025, at 8:09 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: > > Hi Alice, all, > > For Item #7 (Section 4.1), Option A works for me as well. > > Please find below two comments about the edited version: > > • Title: s/Extensions Headers/Extension Headers > • I agree with the change in the first para of S6.2.2. However, please > note that the OLD text was echoing the content > athttps://www.iana.org/assignments/tcp-parameters/tcp-parameters.xhtml#tcp-exids. > It is worth to report this to IANA. > > Other than that, and assuming the above changes are implemented, I approve > the publication of this document. > > Many thanks for all your efforts. > > Cheers, > Med > > De : Benoit Claise <benoit.claise=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> > Envoyé : jeudi 20 février 2025 09:54 > À : Alice Russo <aru...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > Cc : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>; > opsawg-...@ietf.org; opsawg-cha...@ietf.org; thomas.g...@swisscom.com; Mahesh > Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com>; auth48archive@rfc-ed > <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>; RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; me > <benoit.cla...@huawei.com> > Objet : Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9740 <draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-18> for > your review > > > Hi Alice, > > On 2/19/2025 11:41 PM, Alice Russo wrote: > Benoit, > > Thank you for replying to the questions. The document has been updated > accordingly; please see the follow-ups below. The revised files are here > (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9740.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9740.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9740.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9740.xml > > This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9740-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9740-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9740-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9740-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > > Re: #3 (Section 1.1), we added the bulleted item; please review. (We are > assuming the reply "Yes" was about adding the bulleted item, rather than > removing the sentence.) > Indeed. > > > > Re: #6 (Section 3.4), no update has been made. To clarify, the question is: > should "Destination Options header" be "Destination Options headers" in this > list? (The question was not about the word "Options".) > Ah. > No need to change: "Destination Options header" is right > > > > Re: #7 (Section 4.1), we await word from Med. > > Re: #10 (Table 3), no updates have been made, as perhaps the capitalization > intentionally matches RFC 5102. Specifically, we see "Routing header", > "Fragment header - first fragment", and "Fragment header - not first > fragment" in RFC 5102. Please let us know if there are descriptions that you > want to change. > We're good. > > Thanks for your work. > > Regards, Benoit > > > > > We will wait to hear from you again and from your coauthors > before continuing the publication process. This page shows > the AUTH48 status of your document: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9740 > > Thank you. > RFC Editor/ar > > On Feb 18, 2025, at 2:59 AM, Benoit Claise > <benoit.claise=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > Dear IANA, > > I reviewed https://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. See > https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ipv6-parameters.xhtml > > 60 Destination Options for IPv6 [RFC8200] > And https://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> > ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > _ > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu > ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou > falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete > this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
