Hi Alice, to get on the record, I approve it. Regards, Greg
On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 3:20 AM Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) < gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com> wrote: > Approved. Looks good to me Alice, > > G/ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alice Russo <aru...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > Sent: Friday, May 2, 2025 8:18 PM > To: Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com>; Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) < > gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com> > Cc: sbout...@ciena.com; david.bl...@dell.com; santosh.pallaga...@gmail.com; > nvo3-...@ietf.org; nvo3-cha...@ietf.org; Matthew Bocci (Nokia) < > matthew.bo...@nokia.com>; auth48archive@rfc-ed < > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>; RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> > Subject: [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9772 <draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam-16> > for your review > > > CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking > links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional > information. > > > > Greg and Gunter (as AD)*, > > * Gunter, please review and let us know if you approve this change in > Section 2.1 (which is also shown in the diff files below). This is per > Greg's reply to #4 below. > > 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. > > Current: > Requirement 2: The encapsulation of OAM control messages and data > packets in the underlay network MUST be > indistinguishable. > > > Greg, > > Thank you for your reply. Re: #5, you wrote: > > > > Should a reference to draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd be added? > > GIM>> Thank you for pointing it out to me. Yes, I provide one option > below. > > > Should it be informative or normative? Also, what short name is good for > the reference? It has been added as informative and [P2MP-BFD] for now; we > will update it per your reply. (That document is currently in RFC-EDITOR > state.) Please let us know any further changes. > > Original: > For IPv6, the address MUST be > selected from the Dummy IPv6 Prefix for IPv6 *Dummy-IPv6-Prefix*. > > Current: > For IPv6, the address MUST be > selected from the Dummy IPv6 Prefix 100:0:0:1::/64 [P2MP-BFD]. > > > The revised files are here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772.xml > > This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by > side) > > 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/rfc9772 > > Thank you. > RFC Editor/ar > > > On Apr 30, 2025, at 2:09 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Alice, > > thank you for your kind reminder. Please find my answers below tagged > GIM>>. > > > > Regards, > > Greg > > > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 11:12 AM Alice Russo < > aru...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > Authors, > > > > This is a reminder that we await word from you regarding the questions > below and this document's readiness for publication as an RFC. The files > are here: > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772.pdf > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772.txt > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772.xml (source) > > > > Diff files of all changes from the approved Internet-Draft: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772-diff.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772-rfcdiff.html (side by > > side) > > > > This page shows the AUTH48 status of your document: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9772 > > > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor/ar > > > > > On Apr 22, 2025, at 4:11 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > GIM>> Thank you for the proposed text, it is clearer. I agree with the > proposed update. > > > --> > > > > > > > > > 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. > > GIM>> Indeed, plural "paths" is correct here. I agree with the update. > > > --> > > > > > > > > > 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. > > GIM>> Perhaps removing "from the point of view" altogether as follows: > > Requirement 2: The encapsulation of OAM control messages and data > packets in the IP underlay network MUST be indistinguishable. > > > > > > (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? > > GIM>> Thank you for pointing it out to me. Yes, I provide one option > below. > > > > > > 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. > > GIM>> I answered the outstanding question and removed that obstacle, so > things are in motion. > > > > > > 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.] > > GIM>> With the reference: > > 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* > [I-D.ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd]. > > A source-only IPv6 dummy address is used as the destination to > > generate an exception and a reply message to the request message > > received. > > > --> > > > > > > > > > 6) <!--[rfced] Please consider whether "dummy" would be more clear > > > as "example" or "placeholder" or similar. > > > > > > Original: the Dummy IPv6 Prefix > > GIM>> I suggest we leave this as-is; that is the name of the prefix in > the IANA registry. > > > Original: A source-only IPv6 dummy address > > GIM>> Perhaps we can drop "dummy" in this case: > > A source-only IPv6 address is used as the destination to > > generate an exception and a reply message to the request message > > received. > > > --> > > > > > > > > > 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. > > GIM>> It appears to me that we are clean on that. > > > --> > > > > > > > > > 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-4Q9l2US > > > xIAe6P8O4Zc > > > > > > * 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
