Authors, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) 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] How may this sentence be updated for clarity? Specifically, the text after the semicolon is not an independent clause, and the numbers are missing units. Original: The minimum size of this variable MUST NOT be smaller than permitted by the element of BFD procedure; 24 or 26 - see Section 6.8.6 of [RFC5880]. Perhaps: The minimum size of this variable MUST NOT be smaller than 24 or 26 bytes, as permitted by the element of BFD procedure; see Section 6.8.6 of [RFC5880]. Or (because we see the YANG module uses the word 'octets' instead of 'bytes'): The minimum size of this variable MUST NOT be smaller than 24 or 26 octets, as permitted by the element of BFD procedure; see Section 6.8.6 of [RFC5880]. --> 3) <!--[rfced] Please review usage of "Large BFD Packet" and variations within this document. Should it be simply lowercase (e.g., "large BFD packets")? Alternatively, you might consider adding a sentence along the lines of The term "Large BFD Packets" is to refer to the mechanism specified in this document. a) "Large BFD Packets" vs. "Large BFD packets" Original: processing Large BFD Packets ... accepting Large BFD Packets ... (2 instances) Perhaps: processing large BFD packets ... accepting large BFD packets ... (2 instances) Original (Section 4.1): If Large BFD Packets is enabled on a session ... Perhaps: If accepting large BFD packets is enabled on a session ... Original (Section 5.1): configure Large BFD packets Perhaps: configure large BFD packets b) "BFD with Large Packets" Original (as in Sections 4.3 - 4.5): BFD with Large Packets Perhaps (as appears once in Section 4.2): BFD with large packets Original (for example): an application using BFD with Large Packets Perhaps: an application using BFD with large packets c) "BFD Encapsulated in Large Packet" Original (Section 5.1): that BFD Encapsulated in Large Packet is supported Perhaps (lowercase and adding 's'): that BFD encapsulated in large packets is supported --> 4) <!--[rfced] Please clarify; does "The above text" mean all of Section 4.5 or specifically the preceding paragraph or otherwise? Original: The above text also applies to most, if not all, BFD techniques. --> 5) <!--[rfced] FYI that the YANG module has been updated per the formatting option of pyang. Please let us know any concerns. --> 6) <!-- [rfced] Some author comments are present in the XML. Please confirm that no updates related to these comments are outstanding. Note that the comments will be deleted prior to publication. --> 7) <!--[rfced] Regarding the following statement: Original: This section is modeled after the template described in Section 3.7 of [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis]. Could you please confirm that this difference from the template is intentional? >From Section 3.7.1 of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis: Modules that use the groupings that are defined in this document should identify the corresponding security considerations. For example, reusing some of these groupings will expose privacy-related information (e.g., 'node-example'). >From this document: Modules that use the groupings that are defined in this document should identify the corresponding security considerations. This module defines one such grouping, "bfd-large-common", which contains the "pdu-size" data node whose security considerations are documented above. --> 8) <!-- [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 31, 2025, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/03/31 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/rfc9764.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9764.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9764.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9764.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9764-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9764-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9764-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9764 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC9764 (draft-ietf-bfd-large-packets-16) Title : Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Encapsulated in Large Packets Author(s) : J. Haas, A. Fu WG Chair(s) : Jeffrey Haas, Reshad Rahman Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter Van de Velde -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
