Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9551 <draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework-11> for your review

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Megan,
thank you foryour kind consideration of my question and the most detailed
response.

I reviewed all the updates and approve the document.

Best regards,
Greg

On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 10:16 AM Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
> Good question.  Thanks for asking!
>
> This is a quote of a partial sentence from RFC 7799, which fully states.
>
>    Hybrid Methods are Methods of Measurement that use a combination of
>    Active Methods and Passive Methods, to assess Active Metrics, Passive
>    Metrics, or new metrics derived from the a priori knowledge and
>    observations of the stream of interest.
>
> We were attempting to communicate that the full sentence was not included.
> However, upon digging deeper, we see in the Chicago Manual of Style:
>
> Ellipses are normally not used (1) before the first word of a quotation,
> even
> if the beginning of the original sentence has been omitted; or (2) after
> the last
> word of a quotation, even if the end of the original sentence has been
> omitted,
> unless the sentence as quoted is deliberately incomplete (see 13.55).
>
> Because the quoted material could be a full (grammatically complete)
> sentence,
> we have reverted this change as requested.
>
> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9551.txt
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9551.pdf
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9551.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9551.xml
>
> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh):
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9551-diff.html (comprehensive
> diff)
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9551-auth48diff.html (AUTH48
> changes only)
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9551-lastdiff.html (last to
> current version only)
>
> The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here:
>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9551
>
> Thank you.
>
> RFC Editor/mf
>
>
> > On Mar 4, 2024, at 6:10 PM, Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Megan,
> > everything looks perfect. I've noticed one quote in Section 3.7:
> >    |  Hybrid Methods are Methods of Measurement that use a combination
> >    |  of Active Methods and Passive Methods...
> > that appears differently in the current version of the draft:
> >       Hybrid Methods are Methods of Measurement that use a combination
> >       of Active Methods and Passive Methods.
> >
> > Is there a reason for this? To me, the latter format looks better. WDYT?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 4:56 PM Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > Greg, Fabrice, Georgios, and Carlos,
> >
> > Thank you for your replies.  We have updated accordingly.
> >
> > Please review the files carefully as we do not make changes after
> publication.
> >
> > Note: we did not see anyone reply to the keywords request.
> > We will assume the words in the title are sufficient unless we hear
> otherwise.
> >
> > The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9551.txt
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9551.pdf
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9551.html
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9551.xml
> >
> > The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh):
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9551-diff.html (comprehensive
> diff)
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9551-auth48diff.html (AUTH48
> changes only)
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9551-lastdiff.html (last to
> current version only)
> >
> > Please contact us with any further updates/questions/comments you may
> have.
> >
> > We will await approvals from each of the parties listed on the AUTH48
> status page prior to moving forward to publication.
> >
> > The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here:
> >
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9551
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > RFC Editor/mf
> >
> > > On Mar 4, 2024, at 6:50 AM, CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks. I don't have anything to add and I agree with the proposed
> changes and replies by the co-authors.
> > >
> > > Carlos
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 10:38 AM Georgios Z. Papadopoulos <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > > Dear RFC editor,
> > >
> > > Thank you for your work and comments.
> > >
> > > > On 1 Mar 2024, at 20:08, [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] Fabrice: we see a slightly different address in RFC
> 9450.
> > > >     Please let us know if ICube Lab, Pole API should be added to this
> > > >     document as well?-->
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2) <!--[rfced] Please note that the XML submitted had some author
> > > >     comments that have since been deleted.  We assume all had been
> > > >     reviewed.  Please let us know if this is in error. -->
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 3) <!--[rfced] Georgios: please note that we have updated the header
> to
> > > >     use your single first initial as was done in RFC 9450.  Please
> > > >     let us know any objections.  -->
> > >
> > > [GP] Many thanks. No objections.
> > >
> > > > 4) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear
> in
> > > >     the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 5) <!--[rfced] Is the following text equivalent to the original?  If
> so,
> > > >     the "Perhaps" text may be clearer/easier for the reader.  If not,
> > > >     please let us know how to rephrase.
> > > >
> > > > Original:
> > > > Specifically, it investigates the requirements for a deterministic
> > > > network, supporting critical flows.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps:
> > > > Specifically, it investigates the requirements for a deterministic
> > > > network that supports critical flows.
> > > > -->
> > >
> > > [GP] +1
> > > Thanks for the reformulation.
> > >
> > > > 6) <!--[rfced] Please confirm that our updated text maintains your
> > > >     intended meaning.
> > > >
> > > > Original:
> > > > DetNet expects to implement an OAM framework to maintain a real-time
> > > > view of the network infrastructure, and its ability to respect the
> > > > Service Level Objectives (SLOs), such as in-order packet delivery,
> > > > packet delay, delay variation, and packet loss ratio, assigned to
> each
> > > > DetNet flow.
> > > >
> > > > Current:
> > > > DetNet is expected to implement an OAM framework to maintain a
> > > > real-time view of the network infrastructure, and its ability to
> > > > respect the Service Level Objectives (SLOs), such as in-order packet
> > > > delivery, packet delay, delay variation, and packet loss ratio,
> > > > assigned to each DetNet flow.
> > > > -->
> > >
> > > [GP] +1
> > > Thanks for the reformulation.
> > >
> > > > 7) <!--[rfced] Please review our updates to this paragraph to ensure
> we
> > > >     have maintained your intended meaning.  Note that a similar
> > > >     change was made in Section 2.
> > > >
> > > > Original:
> > > >
> > > >   This document lists the functional requirements toward OAM for a
> > > >   DetNet domain.  The list can further be used for gap analysis of
> > > >   available OAM tools to identify possible enhancements of existing
> > > >   or whether new OAM tools are required to support proactive and
> > > >   on-demand path monitoring and service validation.
> > > >
> > > > Current:
> > > >
> > > >   This document lists the OAM functional requirements for a DetNet
> > > >   domain.  The list can further be used for gap analysis of available
> > > >   OAM tools to identify:
> > > >
> > > >   *  possible enhancements of existing tools, or
> > > >
> > > >   *  whether new OAM tools are required to support proactive and on-
> > > >      demand path monitoring and service validation.
> > > >
> > > > -->
> > >
> > > [GP] +1
> > > Thanks for the reformulation.
> > >
> > > > 8) <!--[rfced] As our policy is to expand abbreviations on first
> use, all
> > > >     of the abbreviations in the "Abbreviations" sections have already
> > > >     been introduced.  Additionally, there are a number of
> > > >     abbreviations in the "Definitions" section.  Might it be better/
> > > >     more consistent to cut the "Abbreviations" section? -->
> > >
> > > [GP] +1
> > >
> > > > 9) <!--[rfced] Please review the use of "it" in the following
> sentence.
> > > >     Does it refer to "set" (i.e., a set of SLOs is required for the
> > > >     flows that the set generates)?  If not, please see the possible
> > > >     rephrase below or let us know how we may clarify.
> > > >
> > > > Original:
> > > > Most critical applications will define a set of SLOs to be required
> > > > for the DetNet flows it generates.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps:
> > > > Most critical applications will define a set of SLOs to be required
> > > > for the DetNet flows they generate.
> > > > -->
> > >
> > > [GP] +1
> > > Thanks for the reformulation.
> > >
> > > > 10) <!--[rfced] In the following, may we cut "criteria" from this
> sentence
> > > >     (as it seems to be the quality that degrades, not the criteria)?
> > > >
> > > > Original:
> > > >   Because the quality of service criteria associated with a path may
> > > >   degrade, the network has to provision additional resources along
> > > >   the path.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps:
> > > >   Because the quality of service associated with a path may degrade,
> > > >   the network has to provision additional resources along the path.
> > > > -->
> > >
> > > [GP] +1
> > > Thanks for the reformulation.
> > > It makes more sense now indeed.
> > >
> > > > 11) <!--[rfced] We note that draft-mirsky-ippm-hybrid-two-step-15 is
> > > >     listed in the datatracker as replaced by
> > > >     draft-ietf-ippm-hybrid-two-step.  Please confirm that we may
> > > >     update the reference to point to the latter. -->
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 12) <!-- [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 the following use of "natively"
> > > > should be updated:
> > > >
> > > > Original:
> > > > ...IP data plane is natively in-band with respect to the monitored
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -->
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank you.
> > > >
> > > > RFC Editor/mf
> > >
> > >
> > > Many thanks,
> > > Georgios
> > >
> > >
> > > > *****IMPORTANT*****
> > > >
> > > > Updated 2024/03/01
> > > >
> > > > 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/rfc9551.xml
> > > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9551.html
> > > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9551.pdf
> > > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9551.txt
> > > >
> > > > Diff file of the text:
> > > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9551-diff.html
> > > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9551-rfcdiff.html (side by
> side)
> > > >
> > > > Diff of the XML:
> > > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9551-xmldiff1.html
> > > >
> > > > Tracking progress
> > > > -----------------
> > > >
> > > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
> > > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9551
> > > >
> > > > Please let us know if you have any questions.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for your cooperation,
> > > >
> > > > RFC Editor
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------
> > > > RFC9551 (draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework-11)
> > > >
> > > > Title            : Framework of Operations, Administration and
> Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic Networking (DetNet)
> > > > Author(s)        : G. Mirsky, F. Theoleyre, G. Papadopoulos, C.
> Bernardos, B. Varga, J. Farkas
> > > > WG Chair(s)      : Lou Berger, János Farkas
> > > >
> > > > Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>