Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9556 <draft-irtf-t2trg-iot-edge-10> for your review

[Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>]

Authors, 

Thank you for your replies.  We have updated the files as requested. See below for additional questions and comments.

) Yong-Geun - In RFC 9453, your name appears as "Y-G.” in the header, and in this document, it appears as "Y.-G.” May we update this document to remove the period after “Y” to reflect RFC 9453?  

) Might it be helpful to the reader to clarify the slash in cases like the following (i.e., does it stand for "and", "or", or "and/or"?)?  Note: this appears in several places, the following is just an example. 

Original: 
   The IoT gateway plays a common role in providing access to a                     
   heterogeneous set of IoT devices/sensors,...                                                                                                                      

Perhaps:                                                                         
   The IoT gateway plays a common role in providing access to a                     
   heterogeneous set of IoT devices and sensors,… 

>> 6) <!--[rfced] Should "device" be updated to "devise" or is there another
>> way to rephrase this sentence?
>> Original: 
>> Conversely, a cloud back-end might want to device data 
>> even if it is currently asleep.
>> Perhaps: 
>> Conversely, a cloud backend might want to access device data 
>> even if the device is currently asleep. 
>> -->
> Good catch – we meant the second variant.

) Please clarify, should the sentence be updated to use “devise” or should it be updated to the Perhaps text?

>> 9) <!--[rfced] The SVG figures in Section 4.2 have their width and height
>> specified, which will make the artwork not scale. Please consider
>> whether scaling should be enabled. Scaling will allow the figure
>> to be resized when it is viewed on a mobile device; however,
>> there may be aesthetic trade-offs (e.g., image may appear too
>> large on a desktop screen or different figures may scale
>> differently based on their relative sizes). Please review the
>> HTML and PDF outputs and let us know how to proceed.
>> -->
> The figure should probably be scaled so that the font size in the figure corresponds to the one in the text and so that the figure is not wider than the text width. What is a good way to achieve this in a portable fashion?

) We have removed the width and height attributes from both SVG figures in order for them to scale. Please see the HTML and PDF outputs. 

>> 20) <!--[rfced] Throughout the document, there were certain places we may
>> have expected a citation. Please review cases like the following
>> (there may be more, just examples):
>> As the number of people working on farming has been decreasing over
>> time,...
>> *Smart Construction*
>> Safety is critical at construction sites. Every year, many
>> construction workers lose their lives because of falls,
>> collisions, electric shocks, and other accidents.
>> Policy makers have begun to provide frameworks that limit the usage
>> of personal data and impose strict requirements on data controllers
>> and processors.
>> -->
> Good point – I suggest that we (authors) go through the document and add references to such statements.

) Please note that we still await word regarding where citations should be added. 
---
The files have been posted here (please refresh):
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556.xml
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556.txt
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556.html
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556.pdf

The relevant diff files have been posted here:
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes)

Please review the document carefully and contact us with any further updates you may have.  Note that we do not make changes once a document is published as an RFC.

We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status page below prior to moving this document forward in the publication process.

For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9556

Thank you,
RFC Editor/ap

> On Mar 20, 2024, at 4:13 PM, Xavier De Foy <Xavier.DeFoy=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
>  Thank you very much for the review and updates. I generally agree with Dirks replies and added a few minor comments with the marker [xdf] below. I believe at this stage there are a couple of open items (one about the figure, and one about possibly adding references).  About the figures, I don’t have a strong opinion (the current figures, which I guess are still not scaled, look fine to me on PC and phone, and I don’t know how to test with scaling). For the second point I’ll check with the editor of the use case section.
>  Best Regards,
> Xavier.
>  From: Dirk Kutscher <[e-mail]> 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 10:43 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Xavier De Foy <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9556 <draft-irtf-t2trg-iot-edge-10> for your review
>  Hello,
> many thanks for the careful review and the questions.
> Some answers inline:
> 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"). Please review.
> Original: 
> IoT Edge Challenges and Functions
> Current: 
> Internet of Things (IoT) Edge Challenges and Functions 
> -->
> ACK
> 2) <!--[rfced] Dirk and Matthias: Is there a "short name" we could use
> for your organizations in the header?-->
> For Dirk: HKUST(GZ)
> 3) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
> the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
>     • 
> in-network computing
>     • in network caching
>     • in network storage
> 
> 4) <!--[rfced] To help with longevity, we have updated uses of
> "currently", "today" and the like to say "at the time of 
> writing". Please let us know any objections.-->
> ACK
> 5) <!--[rfced] Is the meaning of this sentence that IoT technology is
> being applied in more types of domains? Or that the applications 
> listed are more demanding than other domains? (That is, is the 
> healthcare domain itself more demanding or is there some 
> application inside the healthcare domain that is more demanding?)
> Original: 
> IoT technology is used with increasingly demanding applications, for 
> example, in industrial, automotive and healthcare domains, leading 
> to new challenges.
> Perhpas A: 
> IoT technology is used with increasingly demanding applications in 
> domains such as industrial, automotive, and healthcare, which leads 
> to new challenges.
> Perhaps B: 
> IoT technology is used with increasingly demanding applications, for 
> example, the industrial, automotive, and healthcare domains, leading 
> to new challenges. 
> -->
> Variant A sounds good.
> 6) <!--[rfced] Should "device" be updated to "devise" or is there another
> way to rephrase this sentence?
> Original: 
> Conversely, a cloud back-end might want to device data 
> even if it is currently asleep.
> Perhaps: 
> Conversely, a cloud backend might want to access device data 
> even if the device is currently asleep. 
> -->
> Good catch – we meant the second variant.
> 7) <!--[rfced] The following three sentences use "typically". We will
> update to use another word to reduce redundancy unless we hear 
> objection.
> Original: 
> The service and application life-cycle is 
> typically using an NFV-like management and orchestration model.
> The platform typically enables advertising or consuming services
> hosted on the platform (e.g., the Mp1 interface in ETSI MEC supports 
> service discovery and communication), and enables communication with 
> local and remote endpoints (e.g., message routing function in IoT 
> gateways). The platform is typically extensible to edge applications 
> because it can advertise a service that other edge applications can 
> consume.
> Perhaps: 
> Typically, the service and application life cycle is 
> using an NFV-like management and orchestration model.
> The platform generally enables advertising or consuming services
> hosted on the platform (e.g., the Mp1 interface in ETSI MEC supports 
> service discovery and communication), and enables communication with 
> local and remote endpoints (e.g., message routing function in IoT 
> gateways). The platform is usually extensible to edge applications 
> because it can advertise a service that other edge applications can 
> consume. 
> -->
> Yes, thank you.
> 8) <!--[rfced] Please review the following questions related to this text:
> a) We are having trouble parsing "the list associated logical
> functions". Is "list" intended to be a noun or a verb?
> b) The placement of "in this section" is somewhat jarring (and makes
> two introductory phrases in the sentence). May we update as follows?
> Original: 
> Although there are many approaches to 
> edge computing, in this section, we attempt to lay out a general 
> model and the list associated logical functions.
> Perhaps A (list is a noun):
> Although there are many approaches to 
> edge computing, this section lays out an attempt at a general 
> model and the list of associated logical functions.
> Perhaps B (list is a verb):
> Although there are many approaches to 
> edge computing, this sections lays out an attempt at a general 
> model and lists associated logical functions. 
> -->
> Variant B sounds good.
> 9) <!--[rfced] The SVG figures in Section 4.2 have their width and height
> specified, which will make the artwork not scale. Please consider 
> whether scaling should be enabled. Scaling will allow the figure 
> to be resized when it is viewed on a mobile device; however, 
> there may be aesthetic trade-offs (e.g., image may appear too 
> large on a desktop screen or different figures may scale 
> differently based on their relative sizes). Please review the 
> HTML and PDF outputs and let us know how to proceed. 
> -->
> The figure should probably be scaled so that the font size in the figure corresponds to the one in the text and so that the figure is not wider than the text width. What is a good way to achieve this in a portable fashion?
> [xdf] I don’t have a strong opinion on this, but after checking the pdf and html links you provide at the end of this email, on a laptop and on a phone, the 2 figures look fine as they are right now.
> 10) <!--[rfced] In the following text, how does the last clause relate to
> the rest of the sentence? If our suggested rephrase does not 
> correctly capture your intent, please let us know how to 
> rephrase.
> Original: 
> In a distributed image processing application, some image processing 
> functions can be similarly executed at the edge or in the cloud, 
> while preprocessing, which helps limiting the amount of uploaded data, 
> is performed by the IoT device.
> Perhaps: 
> Similarly, in a distributed image processing application, some 
> image processing functions can be executed at the edge or 
> in the cloud, which helps with limiting the amount 
> of uploaded data to be performed by the IoT device.
> -->
> How about this:
> Similarly, in a distributed image processing application, some image processing
> functions can be executed at the edge or in the cloud. To limit the amount of data to be uploaded to central cloud functions, IoT edge devices may pre-process data.
> 11) <!--[rfced] Should "IRTF attendees" be further clarified? Is this a
> particular meeting? Participants of all Research Groups?-->
> I suggest "participants of T2TRG meetings".
> 12) <!--[rfced] To avoid the awkward readability of both "used" and
> "using" in the same sentence, may we make the following update?
> Original:
> Broker-based solutions can be used, for example, using an IoT
> gateway as a broker to discover IoT resources.
> Perhaps:
> Broker-based solutions can be implemented; an example would be using an
> IoT gateway as a broker to discover IoT resources. 
> -->
> How about:
> "In a broker-based system, an IoT gateway can act as a broker to discover IoT resources."
> 13) <!--[rfced] Please review our update to "in replacement or complement"
> and let us know if it does not capture your intended meaning.
> Original: 
> More decentralized solutions can also be used in replacement or 
> complement, for example, CoAP enables multicast discovery of an IoT 
> device, and CoAP service discovery enables obtaining a list of 
> resources made available by this device [RFC7252].
> Current: 
> More decentralized solutions can also be used in replacement of or 
> in complement to the broker-based solutions; for example, CoAP 
> enables multicast discovery of an IoT device and CoAP service 
> discovery enables one to obtain a list of resources made 
> available by this device [RFC7252]. 
> -->
> Yes, much better.
> 14) <!--[rfced] Please review our update to the following text to ensure
> we've correctly captured your intended meaning. Because this 
> text includes an example within an example and both are within a 
> list, please review carefully.
> Original:
> * Adapting cloud management platforms to the edge, to account
> for its distributed nature, e.g., using Conflict-free Replicated 
> Data Types (CRDT) [Jeffery], heterogeneity 
> and customization, e.g., using intent-based management mechanisms 
> [Cao], and limited resources.
> Current:
> * Adapting cloud management platforms to the edge to account for
> its distributed nature, e.g., using Conflict-free Replicated Data 
> Types (CRDTs) [Jeffery], heterogeneity and customization (e.g., 
> using intent-based management mechanisms [Cao]), and limited 
> resources 
> -->
> Thanks for spotting this. This sentence seems problematic for a couple of reasons. The examples are quite specific. If co-authors and our shepherd agree, we could simplify as follows:
> Adapting cloud management platforms to the edge to account for its distributed nature, heterogeneity, need for customization, and limited resources.
> [xdf] sounds good to me. I would propose keeping the references, by adding a sentence after the one proposed by Dirk. Something like this (if co-authors and shepherd agree):
> OLD:
> * Adapting cloud management platforms to the edge, to account
> for its distributed nature, e.g., using Conflict-free Replicated 
> Data Types (CRDT) [Jeffery], heterogeneity 
> and customization, e.g., using intent-based management mechanisms 
> [Cao], and limited resources.
> NEW:
> * Adapting cloud management platforms to the edge to account for its distributed nature, heterogeneity, need for customization, and limited resources. For example, using Conflict-free Replicated Data Types (CRDTs) [Jeffery] or intent-based management mechanisms [Cao].
> 15) <!--[rfced] How can we break this run-on sentence up for the reader?
> Original:
> * (Computation placement) Selecting, in a centralized or
> distributed/peer-to-peer manner, an appropriate compute device 
> based on available resources, location of data input and data 
> sinks, compute node properties, etc., and with varying goals 
> including end-to-end latency, privacy, high availability, energy 
> conservation, or network efficiency, for example, using load- 
> balancing techniques to avoid congestion.
> Perhaps:
> * Computation placement: in a centralized or
> distributed/peer-to-peer manner, selecting an appropriate compute 
> device. The selection is based on available resources, location of 
> data input and data sinks, compute node properties, etc. with 
> varying goals. These goals include end-to-end latency, privacy, high 
> availability, energy conservation, or network efficiency. For 
> example, using load-balancing techniques to avoid congestion.
> -->
> Yes, much better – thanks!
> 16) <!--[rfced] We are having difficulty parsing the parenthetical. Please
> review and let us know how it may be updated for clarity.
> Original:
> * Maintaining consistency, freshness, reliability, and privacy of
> stored/cached data in systems that are distributed, constrained, 
> and dynamic (e.g., owing to end devices and computing nodes churn 
> or mobility), and which can have additional data governance 
> constraints on data storage location. 
> -->
> I suggest the following:
>     • Maintaining consistency, freshness, reliability, and privacy of stored/cached data in systems that are distributed, constrained, and dynamic (e.g., due to node mobility, energy-saving regimes, and disruptions) and which can have additional data governance
> constraints on data storage location.
> 17) <!--[rfced] Is the following sentence intended to be a list of
> characteristics of communication brokering? If so, may we update 
> it as follows?
> Original:
> Communication brokering is a typical function of IoT edge computing
> that facilitates communication with IoT devices, enabling clients 
> to register as recipients for data from devices, as well as 
> forwarding/ routing of traffic to or from IoT devices, enabling 
> various data discovery and redistribution patterns, for example, 
> north-south with clouds, east-west with other edge devices 
> [I-D.mcbride-edge-data-discovery-overview].
> Perhaps:
> Communication brokering is a typical function of IoT edge computing
> that facilitates communication with IoT devices, enables clients to 
> register as recipients for data from devices forwards/routes of 
> traffic to or from IoT devices, enables various data discovery and 
> redistribution patterns (for example, north-south with clouds and 
> east-west with other edge devices 
> [I-D.mcbride-edge-data-discovery-overview]. 
> -->
> Thanks, much better. Some additional edits:
> Communication brokering is a typical function of IoT edge computing
> that facilitates communication with IoT devices, enables clients to
> register as recipients for data from devices, forwards
> traffic to or from IoT devices, enables various data discovery and
> redistribution patterns (for example, north-south with clouds and
> east-west with other edge devices
> [I-D.mcbride-edge-data-discovery-overview].
> [xdf] minor typo: need to close the parenthesis at the end of the paragraph.
> 18) <!--[rfced] It's unclear how "dynamic" fits into the sentence below.
> Is it meant to read "dynamic environtments"?
> Original: 
> * Addressing concerns such as limited resources, privacy, dynamic, 
> and heterogeneous environments to deploy machine learning at the 
> edge:
> Perhaps: 
> * Addressing concerns such as limited resources, privacy, and dynamic 
> and heterogeneous environments to deploy machine learning at the 
> edge: 
> -->
> Yes.
> 19) <!-- [rfced] Please ensure that the guidelines listed in Section 2.1 of RFC 5743 have been adhered to in this document. -->
> IMO, "Status of This Memo" has all the required information.
> 20) <!--[rfced] Throughout the document, there were certain places we may
> have expected a citation. Please review cases like the following 
> (there may be more, just examples):
> As the number of people working on farming has been decreasing over
> time,...
> *Smart Construction*
> Safety is critical at construction sites. Every year, many 
> construction workers lose their lives because of falls, 
> collisions, electric shocks, and other accidents.
> Policy makers have begun to provide frameworks that limit the usage
> of personal data and impose strict requirements on data controllers 
> and processors.
> -->
> Good point – I suggest that we (authors) go through the document and add references to such statements.
> 21) <!-- [rfced] Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to
> be used inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let 
> us know if/how they may be made consistent.
> a) Capitalization
> Big Data vs. big data
> Cloud vs. cloud 
> Industrial IoT vs. industrial IoT 
> Smart Grid vs. smart grid 
> Thing vs. thing 
> Edge vs. edge
> I'm in favor of using lowercase for all terms except for "Thing".
> b) hyphenation
> edge computing vs. edge-computing (when in attributive position (before a noun))
> -->
> How about just using "edge computing"?
> 22) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for the following
> abbreviations per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style 
> Guide"). Please review each expansion in the document carefully 
> to ensure correctness.
> Content Delivery Network (CDN)
> Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) 
> Discovery Domain Set (DDS) 
> Information-Centric Networking (ICN) 
> Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) 
> Multi-access Edge Computing (MEC) 
> Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT) 
> Open Platform Communications Unified Architecture (OPC UA) 
> Software-Defined Networking (SDN) 
> Virtual Machine (VM) 
> -->
> Looks good.
> 23) <!-- [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. For example, please 
> consider whether "native" should be updated.
> In addition, please consider whether "traditional" should be updated
> for clarity. While the NIST website 
> <https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructions#table1>
> indicates that this term is potentially biased, it is also ambiguous. 
> "Tradition" is a subjective term, as it is not the same for everyone. 
> -->
> Personally, I don't think "native" and "tradition" needs updating (but open to suggestions from co-authors).
> Many thanks for the careful review and the useful suggestions!
> Best regards,
> Dirk
> Thank you.
> RFC Editor/ap/mf
> *****IMPORTANT*****
> Updated 2024/03/18
> 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
> * [e-mail] (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).
> * [e-mail], 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, 
> [e-mail] 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/rfc9556.xml
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556.pdf
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556.txt
> Diff file of the text:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556-diff.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
> Diff of the XML: 
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556-xmldiff1.html
> The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own
> diff files of the XML.
> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556.original.v2v3.xml
> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
> only: 
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556.form.xml
> Tracking progress 
> -----------------
> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9556
> Please let us know if you have any questions.
> Thank you for your cooperation,
> RFC Editor
> --------------------------------------
> RFC9556 (draft-irtf-t2trg-iot-edge-10)
> Title : IoT Edge Challenges and Functions
> Author(s) : J. Hong, Y. Hong, X. de Foy, M. Kovatsch, E. Schooler, D. Kutscher 
> WG Chair(s) :
> Area Director(s) :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defining the XR Experience: Enabling the Immersivity Ecosystem
> This e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or otherwise protected from disclosure to anyone other than its intended recipient. Unintended transmission shall not constitute waiver of any privilege or confidentiality obligation. If you received this communication in error, please do not review, copy or distribute it, notify me immediately by email, and delete the original message and any attachments. Unless expressly stated in this e-mail, nothing in this message or any attachment should be construed as a digital or electronic signature.