Authors,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary)
the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!-- [rfced] Please note that the title of the document has been updated as
follows. Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC
Style Guide").
Original:
Active OAM for use in Geneve
Current:
Active Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) for Use in
Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation (Geneve)
-->
2) <!--[rfced] Please clarify; is it possible that each endpoint (rather than
the two endpoints together) is an interface of an NVE? If so, we suggest
updating this sentence as follows.
Original:
Active OAM messages in a
Geneve overlay network are exchanged between two Geneve tunnel
endpoints, which may be the tenant-facing interface of the Network
Virtualization Edge (NVE) or another device acting as a Geneve tunnel
endpoint.
Perhaps:
Active OAM messages in a
Geneve overlay network are exchanged between two Geneve tunnel
endpoints; each endpoint may be the tenant-facing interface of the Network
Virtualization Edge (NVE) or another device acting as a Geneve tunnel
endpoint.
-->
3) <!--[rfced] Should "follow the same overlay and transport path" be plural
"paths"?
Original:
Specifically,
the OAM test packets MUST be in-band with the monitored traffic
and follow the same overlay and transport path as packets carrying
data payloads in the forward direction, i.e., from the ingress
toward the egress endpoint(s) of the OAM test.
Perhaps:
Specifically,
the OAM test packets MUST be in-band with the monitored traffic
and follow the same overlay and transport paths as packets carrying
data payloads in the forward direction, i.e., from the ingress
toward the egress endpoint(s) of the OAM test.
-->
4) <!--[rfced] How may "from the underlay network IP forwarding point
of view" be rephrased for clarity?
Original:
Requirement 2: The encapsulation of OAM control messages and data
packets in the underlay network MUST be indistinguishable from
each other from the underlay network IP forwarding point of view.
Perhaps:
Requirement 2: The encapsulation of OAM control messages and data
packets in the underlay network MUST be indistinguishable from
each other from the point of view of the forwarding in the IP
underlay network.
(We note the phrase "the forwarding in the IP underlay network" is used in
Section 2.2.)
-->
5) <!--[rfced] Regarding Section 2.3, the IANA actions for
draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd are not yet complete, i.e., the
Dummy-IPv6-Prefix requested by draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd has not yet been
assigned, so the text of this document has not been updated.
Should a reference to draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd be added?
We note that https://www.iana.org/performance/ietf-draft-status lists
draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd as waiting on authors since 22 Feb 2025.
Unless the text is changed to remove this prefix, this document
will remain in AUTH48 until the Dummy-IPv6-Prefix has been assigned.
ORIGINAL:
Inner IP header:
Destination IP: The IP address MUST be set to the loopback address
127.0.0.1/32 for IPv4 version. For IPv6, the address MUST be
selected from the Dummy IPv6 Prefix for IPv6 *Dummy-IPv6-Prefix*.
A source-only IPv6 dummy address is used as the destination to
generate an exception and a reply message to the request message
received.
[Note to RFC Editor: Please replace *Dummy-IPv6-Prefix* with the
actual value allocated (requested in draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd) in
IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry.]
-->
6) <!--[rfced] Please consider whether "dummy" would be more clear
as "example" or "placeholder" or similar.
Original: the Dummy IPv6 Prefix
Original: A source-only IPv6 dummy address
-->
7) <!-- [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 Apr 22, 2025, at 4:11 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote:
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2025/04/22
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/rfc9772.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9772
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC9772 (draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam-16)
Title : Active Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
for Use in Generic Network Virtualization Encapsulation (Geneve)
Author(s) : G. Mirsky, S. Boutros, D. Black, S. Pallagatti
WG Chair(s) : Matthew Bocci, Sam Aldrin
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
