Responses inline....... RB>
Once the changes mentioned in this email are applied, I approve the document
for publication.
Ron
Juniper Business Use Only
________________________________
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 1:38 AM
To: Ron Bonica <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected]
<[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>;
[email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected]
<[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9805 <draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-router-alert-13>
for your review
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Ron,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the
following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!-- [rfced] May we update "between IP Router Alert packets of interest and
unwanted IP Router Alerts" as follows to improve readability?
Original:
In a nutshell, the IP Router Alert Option does
not provide a universal mechanism to accurately and reliably
distinguish between IP Router Alert packets of interest and unwanted
IP Router Alerts.
Perhaps:
In a nutshell, the IP Router Alert Option does
not provide a universal mechanism to accurately and reliably
distinguish between IP Router Alert packets that are of interest
and those that are unwanted.
-->
RB> Please leave this one alone. It is a direct quote from RFC 6398
2) <!-- [rfced] Please confirm that "may" in last sentence is correct. Or
should it
be "MAY" to correspond with "MAY" in the first sentence?
RB> It should be MAY. Good catch!
Original:
Protocols
that use the Router Alert Option MAY continue to do so, even in
future versions. However, new protocols that are standardized in the
future MUST NOT use the Router Alert Option. Appendix A contains an
exhaustive list of protocols that may continue to use the Router
Alert Option.
Perhaps:
Protocols
that use the Router Alert Option MAY continue to do so, even in
future versions. However, new protocols that are standardized in the
future MUST NOT use the Router Alert Option. Appendix A contains an
exhaustive list of protocols that MAY continue to use the Router
Alert Option.
-->
3) <!-- [rfced] Informative reference RFC 3810 has been obsoleted by
RFC 9777. We recommend replacing RFC 3810 with RFC 9777. However, if RFC
3810 must be referenced, we suggest mentioning RFC 9777 (e.g., RFC 3810 has
been obsoleted by RFC 9777). See Section 4.8.6 in the RFC Style Guide (RFC
7322).
-->
RB> Please update the reference.
4) <!-- [rfced] Should "router alert" in this text in Table 1 be updated to
"Router Alert Option"?
RB> Yes! Again, good catch
Original:
MPLS PING (Use of router alert deprecated)
Perhaps:
MPLS Ping (Use of Router Alert Option is deprecated)
-->
5) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether the note in Section 3
should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container for
content that is semantically less important or tangential to the
content that surrounds it"
(https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary*aside__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!E1ZXl_420vkIhm0Jn6eV9pDuF893K_6mF_2cRkP8AcbBmSXpudAshcsEIv6ky-Zd9CkylA4ezj-wh0Xlw1jVsPaN$
).
RB> Yes, it is an <aside>. I never know that such an XML feature existed!
Original:
NOTE: Many routers maintain separation between forwarding and control
plane hardware. The forwarding plane is implemented on high-
performance Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASIC) and
Network Processors (NP), while the control plane is implemented on
general-purpose processors. Given this difference, the control plane
is more susceptible to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) attack than the
forwarding plane.
-->
6) <!-- [rfced] Terminology
a) We note inconsistencies in the terms listed below. We chose the latter form
(i.e., capitalized "Option"). Please let us know if you prefer
differently.
Router Alert option
Router Alert Option
Note: The capitalized form with "Option" is used in RFCs 6398, 7506, and
9673 (and is
more common in this document); the lowercase form with "option" is used in
RFCs 8504
and 9288.
RB> Please standardize on Router Alert option.
b) We see the following forms used in the document. Are any updates needed, or
are these okay as is?
Router Alert Option
IP Router Alert Option
IPv6 Router Alert Option
RB> Please standardize on IPv6 Router Alert Option, except for the one case of
IP Router Alert Option. That is a direct quote from
another RFC.
Hop-by-Hop Options header
IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options header
RB> Please standardize on Hop-by-Hop Options Header
c) Should "Hop-by-Hop options" here be updated to "Hop-by-Hop Options header"?
Original:
One approach would be
to deprecate the Router Alert option, because current usage beyond
the local network appears to be limited, and packets containing Hop-
by-Hop options are frequently dropped.
Perhaps:
One approach would be
to deprecate the Router Alert Option, because current usage beyond
the local network appears to be limited and packets containing the Hop-
by-Hop Options header are frequently dropped.
RB> Please leave this one alone. It is a direct quote from
d) We updated "PING" to "Ping" per usage in RFCs 7506, 8029, and 9570.
RB> Good catch
e) May we update "INTSERV" to either "Intserv" (RFCs 9522, 9064, and 7417) or
"IntServ" (RFCs 9049 and 6007), both of which are more common in the RFC
Series?
-->
RB> Please do
7) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for the following abbreviation(s)
per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each
expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness.
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
-->
RB> Good catch!
8) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online
Style Guide
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/*inclusive_language__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!E1ZXl_420vkIhm0Jn6eV9pDuF893K_6mF_2cRkP8AcbBmSXpudAshcsEIv6ky-Zd9CkylA4ezj-wh0Xlw3AtDTFD$
>
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/rv
On Jun 12, 2025, at 10:31 PM, [email protected] wrote:
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2025/06/12
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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!E1ZXl_420vkIhm0Jn6eV9pDuF893K_6mF_2cRkP8AcbBmSXpudAshcsEIv6ky-Zd9CkylA4ezj-wh0XlwwV_tTqH$
).
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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!E1ZXl_420vkIhm0Jn6eV9pDuF893K_6mF_2cRkP8AcbBmSXpudAshcsEIv6ky-Zd9CkylA4ezj-wh0XlwyPdvjPl$
).
* 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!E1ZXl_420vkIhm0Jn6eV9pDuF893K_6mF_2cRkP8AcbBmSXpudAshcsEIv6ky-Zd9CkylA4ezj-wh0Xlw3kdsNv1$
>.
* 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
* [email protected] (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).
* [email protected], which is a new archival mailing list
to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion
list:
* More info:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!E1ZXl_420vkIhm0Jn6eV9pDuF893K_6mF_2cRkP8AcbBmSXpudAshcsEIv6ky-Zd9CkylA4ezj-wh0Xlw8E4OC4P$
* The archive itself:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!E1ZXl_420vkIhm0Jn6eV9pDuF893K_6mF_2cRkP8AcbBmSXpudAshcsEIv6ky-Zd9CkylA4ezj-wh0Xlw49zdemR$
* 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,
[email protected] 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9805.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!E1ZXl_420vkIhm0Jn6eV9pDuF893K_6mF_2cRkP8AcbBmSXpudAshcsEIv6ky-Zd9CkylA4ezj-wh0Xlw1ntkWnN$
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9805.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!E1ZXl_420vkIhm0Jn6eV9pDuF893K_6mF_2cRkP8AcbBmSXpudAshcsEIv6ky-Zd9CkylA4ezj-wh0Xlwwm6sqB_$
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9805.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!E1ZXl_420vkIhm0Jn6eV9pDuF893K_6mF_2cRkP8AcbBmSXpudAshcsEIv6ky-Zd9CkylA4ezj-wh0Xlw4gy4kLS$
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9805.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!E1ZXl_420vkIhm0Jn6eV9pDuF893K_6mF_2cRkP8AcbBmSXpudAshcsEIv6ky-Zd9CkylA4ezj-wh0Xlw5kz983J$
Diff file of the text:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9805-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!E1ZXl_420vkIhm0Jn6eV9pDuF893K_6mF_2cRkP8AcbBmSXpudAshcsEIv6ky-Zd9CkylA4ezj-wh0XlwzIa6zn_$
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9805-rfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!E1ZXl_420vkIhm0Jn6eV9pDuF893K_6mF_2cRkP8AcbBmSXpudAshcsEIv6ky-Zd9CkylA4ezj-wh0Xlwx9DIeem$
(side by side)
Alt-diff of the text (allows you to more easily view changes
where text has been deleted or moved):
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9805-alt-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!E1ZXl_420vkIhm0Jn6eV9pDuF893K_6mF_2cRkP8AcbBmSXpudAshcsEIv6ky-Zd9CkylA4ezj-wh0Xlw4F6_iMu$
Diff of the XML:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9805-xmldiff1.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!E1ZXl_420vkIhm0Jn6eV9pDuF893K_6mF_2cRkP8AcbBmSXpudAshcsEIv6ky-Zd9CkylA4ezj-wh0Xlw5LG9FPU$
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9805__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!E1ZXl_420vkIhm0Jn6eV9pDuF893K_6mF_2cRkP8AcbBmSXpudAshcsEIv6ky-Zd9CkylA4ezj-wh0Xlw4RJIEjK$
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC9805 (draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-router-alert-13)
Title : Deprecation Of The IPv6 Router Alert Option For New Protocols
Author(s) : R. Bonica
WG Chair(s) : Bob Hinden, Jen Linkova
Area Director(s) : Erik Kline, Éric Vyncke
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
