Authors, While reviewing this document during AUTH48 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9747.html and other formats), please resolve the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> 2) <!-- [rfced] Because this document updates RFC 5880, please review the errata reported for RFC 5880 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc5880). Please let us know if you agree that none of them are relevant to the content of this document. --> 3) <!--[rfced] Please clarify this sentence, especially "from its own standpoint". Is this about the local end's standpoint? Original: The local end as an initiator may regard the Unaffiliated BFD Echo session as a BFD session from its own standpoint. Perhaps: From the standpoint of the local end (as an initiator), the Unaffiliated BFD Echo session may be regarded as a BFD session. Or: The local end (with the viewpoint of the initiator) may regard the Unaffiliated BFD Echo session as a BFD session. --> 4) <!--[rfced] May we update this sentence to two sentences as follows for clarity? Specifically, the updates are assuming: - the "once" phrase applies to the latter part. - "is conformed to" means "conforms to". Original: Unaffiliated BFD Echo packets with zeroed "Your Discriminator" field are demultiplexed to the proper session based on the source IP address or UDP source port, once the remote system loops back the local discriminator, all further received packets are demultiplexed based on the "Your Discriminator" field only, which is conformed to the procedure specified in Section 6.3 of [RFC5880]. Perhaps: Unaffiliated BFD Echo packets with zeroed "Your Discriminator" field are demultiplexed to the proper session based on the source IP address or UDP source port. After the remote system loops back the local discriminator, all further received packets are demultiplexed based on the "Your Discriminator" field only, which conforms to the procedure specified in Section 6.3 of [RFC5880]. --> 5) <!--[rfced] We note that quotation marks are not used around the field names in RFC 5880. Do you want to keep the quotation marks within this document? Current: "Your Discriminator" field "Desired Min TX Interval" [field] "Required Min RX Interval" field "Required Min Echo RX Interval" field --> 6) <!--[rfced] Regarding the updates to Section 6.8.9 of RFC 5880 a) Because these are two contiguous paragraphs in RFC 5880, we suggest they be together rather than separate. Is this acceptable? b) Because "except as follows" conveys meaning to the reader (i.e., they need to read the subsequent text in RFC 5880), we suggest including it in the OLD and NEW TEXT. Suggested: The 1st and 2nd paragraphs of Section 6.8.9 of [RFC5880] are updated as below: OLD TEXT | BFD Echo packets MUST NOT be transmitted when bfd.SessionState is | not Up. BFD Echo packets MUST NOT be transmitted unless the last | BFD Control packet received from the remote system contains a | nonzero value in Required Min Echo RX Interval. | | BFD Echo packets MAY be transmitted when bfd.SessionState is Up. | The interval between transmitted BFD Echo packets MUST NOT be less | than the value advertised by the remote system in Required Min | Echo RX Interval, except as follows: [...] NEW TEXT | When a system is using the Echo function with either Asynchronous | or Demand mode, BFD Echo packets MUST NOT be transmitted when | bfd.SessionState is not Up, and BFD Echo packets MUST NOT be | transmitted unless the last BFD Control packet received from the | remote system contains a nonzero value in Required Min Echo RX | Interval. | | When a system is using the Echo function with either Asynchronous | or Demand mode, BFD Echo packets MAY be transmitted when | bfd.SessionState is Up, and the interval between transmitted BFD | Echo packets MUST NOT be less than the value advertised by the | remote system in Required Min Echo RX Interval, except as follows: | [...] --> 7) <!--[rfced] Please clarify this sentence, in particular, "would be counter productive to check". Original: Moreover, creating congestion would be counter productive to check the bidirectional connectivity. Perhaps: Moreover, creating congestion would be counterproductive to checking the bidirectional connectivity. --> 8) <!--[rfced] FYI, we updated this sentence to three sentences as follows; please review whether the text conveys the intended meaning. In particular, please review whether "other BFD system" was intended as singular (as below) or plural (perhaps you intended "coexist with other types of BFD sessions"). Original: At a BFD- enabled local system, the Unaffiliated BFD Echo session can coexist with other type of BFD session, in which scenario the remote system for the Unaffiliated BFD Echo session must be different from the remote system for other type of BFD session, and the local system's discriminators for different BFD sessions must be different, at the same time it's not necessary for the local system to differentiate the Unaffiliated BFD Echo session from other type of BFD session. Current: At a BFD- enabled local system, the Unaffiliated BFD Echo session can coexist with another type of BFD session. In that scenario, the remote system for the Unaffiliated BFD Echo session must be different from the remote system for the other type of BFD session, and the local system's discriminators for different BFD sessions must be different. At the same time, it's not necessary for the local system to differentiate the Unaffiliated BFD Echo session from the other type of BFD session. --> 9) <!-- [rfced] FYI, we have updated this reference to match what was available at the URL, as shown below. For the URL, would you prefer to use the original (A) https://www.broadband-forum.org/technical/download/TR-146.pdf (which redirects to a wiki page titled "Broadband Forum Published Resources") or (B) https://www.broadband-forum.org/pdfs/tr-146-1-0-0.pdf (which is the document itself)? Original: [BBF-TR-146] Broadband Forum, "BBF Technical Report - Subscriber Sessions Issue 1", 2013, <https://www.broadband- forum.org/technical/download/TR-146.pdf>. Current: [BBF-TR-146] Broadband Forum, "TR-146: Subscriber Sessions", Broadband Forum Technical Report, TR-146, Issue 1, May 2013, <https://www.broadband-forum.org/technical/download/TR- 146.pdf>. --> 10) <!-- [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 Mar 4, 2025, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/03/04 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/rfc9747.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9747.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9747.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9747.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9747-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9747-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9747-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9747 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC9747 (draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo-14) Title : Unaffiliated Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Echo Author(s) : W. Cheng, R. Wang, X. Min, R. Rahman, R. Boddireddy WG Chair(s) : Jeffrey Haas, Reshad Rahman Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, John Scudder, Gunter Van de Velde -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
