Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9534 <draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag-06> for your review

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jean,
thank you for your thoughtful and careful work integrating all the updates.
I agree with all changes and approve the current version of the document.
Please let me know if there are any further questions.

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 7:19 AM Jean Mahoney <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Zhenqiang, Greg, Tianran,
>
> Thank you for your quick responses! We have updated the document based
> on your feedback:
>
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/authors/rfc9534-lastrfcdiff.html
>
> Zhenqiang, we have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page:
>
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9534
>
> The files have been posted here:
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.txt
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.pdf
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.html
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.xml
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-diff.html (all changes)
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-rfcdiff.html (all changes
> side by side)
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-auth48diff.html
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-alt-diff.html
>
> We will await further word from you and your coauthors regarding other
> AUTH48 changes and/or approval.
>
> Best regards,
> RFC Editor/jm
>
>
> On 1/23/24 10:13 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> > Hello Editor and coauthors,
> >
> > I have no objection on Greg's and Tianran's suggestion.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Best Regards,
> > Zhenqiang Li
> > China Mobile
> > [e-mail]
> >
> >     *From:* Tianran Zhou <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >     *Date:* 2024-01-24 11:08
> >     *To:* Greg Mirsky <mailto:[e-mail]>;
> >     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >     *CC:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>;
> >     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>; Zhukeyi(Kaiyin,Datacom
> >     Standard&Patent) <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >     *Subject:* RE: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9534
> >     <draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag-06> for your review
> >
> >     Hi Editor and Greg,
> >
> >     I prefer Greg’s change on this.
> >
> >     GIM>> Thank you for the question and proposed update. I agree that
> >     the first occurence of "tuple" must be singular. The second, as I
> >     think of how it works, is about modifying some elements of the
> >     5-tuple. I would propose the following update:
> >
> >     OLD TEXT:
> >
> >         One STAMP test session over the LAG can measure the performance
> of a
> >         member link with fixed five tuples, or it can measure an average
> of
> >         some or all member links of the LAG by varying the five tuples.
> >
> >     NEW TEXT:
> >
> >         A STAMP test session over the LAG can be used to measure the
> >     performance of a
> >
> >         member link using specially-constructed 5-tuple. The session can
> >     be used to measure an average of
> >
> >         some or all member links of the LAG by varying one or more
> >     elements  of that 5-tuple.
> >
> >     Cheers,
> >
> >     Tianran
> >
> >     *From:*Greg Mirsky [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >     *Sent:* Wednesday, January 24, 2024 10:53 AM
> >     *To:* [e-mail]
> >     *Cc:* [e-mail]; Tianran Zhou
> >     <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> >     [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> >     [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >     *Subject:* Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9534
> >     <draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag-06> for your review
> >
> >     Dear RFC Editor,
> >
> >     thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the document and
> >     helpful suggestions to improve it. Please find my responses to your
> >     questions below tagged by GIM>>. Please let me know if there are any
> >     further questions or actions I should take.
> >
> >     Regards,
> >
> >     Greg
> >
> >     On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 10:44 AM <[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >
> >         Authors,
> >
> >         While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as
> >         necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML
> file.
> >
> >         1) <!-- [rfced] We have updated the title of the document by
> >         expanding LAG. Please let us know if any changes are necessary.
> >
> >         Original:
> >           Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol Extensions for
> >         Performance
> >                                     Measurement on LAG
> >
> >         Current:
> >           Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol Extensions for
> >         Performance
> >                             Measurement on a Link Aggregation Group
> >
> >     GIM>> I agree with the proposed text.
> >
> >
> >         -->
> >
> >
> >         2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that
> >         appear in
> >         the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search
> >         <https://www.rfc-editor.org/search>. -->
> >
> >
> >         3) <!-- [rfced] Section 1. We would like to clarify the use of
> >         "tuple" in the sentence below:
> >
> >         Current:
> >
> >             One STAMP test session over the LAG can measure the
> >         performance of a
> >             member link with fixed five tuples, or it can measure an
> >         average of
> >             some or all member links of the LAG by varying the five
> tuples.
> >
> >         Perhaps (updating "five tuple" to "5-tuple", which is more
> >         commonly used; making the first use of "tuple" singular; and
> >         changing "varying the five tuples" to "specifying their
> 5-tuples"):
> >
> >             One STAMP test session over the LAG can measure the
> >         performance of a
> >             member link using its fixed 5-tuple, or it can measure an
> >         average of
> >             some or all member links of the LAG by specifying their
> >         5-tuples.
> >
> >     GIM>> Thank you for the question and proposed update. I agree that
> >     the first occurence of "tuple" must be singular. The second, as I
> >     think of how it works, is about modifying some elements of the
> >     5-tuple. I would propose the following update:
> >
> >     OLD TEXT:
> >
> >         One STAMP test session over the LAG can measure the performance
> of a
> >         member link with fixed five tuples, or it can measure an average
> of
> >         some or all member links of the LAG by varying the five tuples.
> >
> >     NEW TEXT:
> >
> >         A STAMP test session over the LAG can be used to measure the
> >     performance of a
> >
> >         member link using specially-constructed 5-tuple. The session can
> >     be used to measure an average of
> >
> >         some or all member links of the LAG by varying one or more
> >     elements  of that 5-tuple.
> >
> >         -->
> >
> >
> >         4) <!-- [rfced] [IEEE802.1AX] 802.1AX-2008 has been superseded
> >         by 802.1AX-2014. Would you like to update the reference?
> >
> >         Current:
> >             [IEEE802.1AX]
> >                        IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan
> area
> >                        networks - Link Aggregation", IEEE Std
> 802.1AX-2008,
> >                        DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2008.4668665, November 2008,
> >                        <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4668665
> >         <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4668665>>.
> >
> >     GIM>> Yes, please update the reference to the latest.
> >
> >         -->
> >
> >
> >         5) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion
> >         of the online Style Guide
> >         <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language
> >         <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language
> >>
> >         and let us know if any changes are needed.
> >
> >         Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but
> >         this should
> >         still be reviewed as a best practice.
> >
> >     GIM>> I don't find any updates
> >
> >         -->
> >
> >
> >         6) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for abbreviations
> >         upon first use per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide").
> >         Please review each
> >         expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness.
> >
> >     GIM>> All expansions are correct.
> >
> >         -->
> >
> >
> >         Thank you.
> >
> >         RFC Editor/jm
> >
> >         On 1/23/24 12:41 PM, [e-mail]
> >         <mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >         *****IMPORTANT*****
> >
> >         Updated 2024/01/23
> >
> >         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/
> >         <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/
> >         <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
> >         <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]
> >         <mailto:[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]
> >         <mailto:[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
> <
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
> >
> >
> >               *  The archive itself:
> >         https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
> >         <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]
> >         <mailto:[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/rfc9534.xml
> >         <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.xml>
> >         https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.html
> >         <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.html>
> >         https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.pdf
> >         <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.pdf>
> >         https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.txt
> >         <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.txt>
> >
> >         Diff file of the text:
> >         https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-diff.html
> >         <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-diff.html>
> >         https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-rfcdiff.html
> >         <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-rfcdiff.html> (side
> >         by side)
> >
> >         For your convenience, we have also created an alt-diff file that
> >         will
> >         allow you to more easily view changes where text has been
> deleted or
> >         moved:
> >         http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-alt-diff.html
> >         <http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-alt-diff.html>
> >
> >         Diff of the XML:
> >         https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-xmldiff1.html
> >         <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-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/rfc9534.original.v2v3.xml
> >         <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.original.v2v3.xml>
> >
> >         XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format
> >         updates
> >         only:
> >         https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.form.xml
> >         <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.form.xml>
> >
> >
> >         Tracking progress
> >         -----------------
> >
> >         The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
> >         https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9534
> >         <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9534>
> >
> >         Please let us know if you have any questions.
> >
> >         Thank you for your cooperation,
> >
> >         RFC Editor
> >
> >         --------------------------------------
> >         RFC9534 (draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag-06)
> >
> >         Title            : Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
> >         Extensions for Performance Measurement on LAG
> >         Author(s)        : Z. Li, T. Zhou, J. Guo, G. Mirsky, R. Gandhi
> >         WG Chair(s)      : Marcus Ihlar, Tommy Pauly
> >         Area Director(s) : Martin Duke, Zaheduzzaman Sarker
> >
>