Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9566 <draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-11> for your review

[Jean Mahoney <[e-mail]>]

All,

Adding John Scudder to the CC as responsible AD. Deb, you were added to 
the CC accidentally. Apologies.

Best regards,
RFC Editor/jm

On 4/3/24 5:18 PM, [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] Title. FYI, we have expanded PREOF in the title to match our guidance on expanding abbreviations upon first use. Could the title be shortened by removing an instance of "DetNet"?
> 
> Original:
>    Deterministic Networking (DetNet): DetNet PREOF via MPLS over UDP/IP
> 
> Current:
>    Deterministic Networking (DetNet): DetNet Packet Replication,
>    Elimination, and Ordering Functions (PREOF) via MPLS over UDP/IP
> 
> Perhaps:
>    Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Packet Replication, Elimination,
>    and Ordering Functions (PREOF) via MPLS over UDP/IP
> -->
> 
> 
> 2) <!-- [rfced] Title. FYI, we have made the short title, which is displayed in the header of the PDF, consistent with the title of the RFC. Please let us know if any changes are necessary.
> 
> Original:
>    PREOF DetNet IP
> 
> Current:
>    DetNet PREOF via MPLS over UDP/IP
> -->
> 
> 
> 3) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
> 
> 
> 4) <!-- [rfced] Section 3. Because "practically" usually means "almost" and "gains" typically means "acquires", may we update the following sentence?
> 
> Original:
>     The described solution practically gains from MPLS header fields
>     without requiring the support of the MPLS forwarding plane.
> 
> Perhaps:
>     The described solution leverages MPLS header fields
>     without requiring the support of the MPLS forwarding plane.
> -->
> 
> 
> 5) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.3. FYI, we have updated the following sentence to improve clarity. Please let us know if any updates are necessary.
> 
> Original:
>     Note, that Service-IDs is a local ID on the receiver side providing
>     identification of the DetNet flow at the downstream DetNet service
>     sub-layer receiver.
> 
> Current:
>     Note that the Service-ID is a local ID on the receiver side that
>     identifies the DetNet flow at the downstream DetNet service
>     sub-layer receiver.
> -->
> 
> 
> 6) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.4. Does the sentence below mean that the nodes are configured with the aggregation method?
> 
> Original:
>     The option used for aggregation is known by configuration of the
>     aggregation/de-aggregation nodes.
> 
> Perhaps:
>     The aggregation method is configured in the
>     aggregation/de-aggregation nodes.
> -->
> 
> 
> 7) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.5. Is only a Service-ID used to identify a flow or is a Service-ID used with other information to identify a flow?
> 
> Original:
>     A Service-ID can be allocated to be unique and enabling
>     DetNet flow identification regardless of which input interface or UDP
>     tunnel the packet is received.
> 
> Perhaps:
>     A unique Service-ID can be allocated and can be used
>     to identify a DetNet flow regardless of which input interface or UDP
>     tunnel receives the packet.
> -->
> 
> 
> 8) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.5. The following sentence implies that there is a single header that contains both UDP and IP information.
> 
> Original:
>     ...each member flow requires their own Service-ID, UDP
>     and IP header information.
> 
> Perhaps:
>     ...each member flow requires its own Service-ID, UDP
>     header information, and IP header information.
> -->
> 
> 
> 9) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.5. Is part of the processing the assignment of the Service-ID? Is the header information assigned?
> 
> Original:
>     The incoming PREOF processing can be implemented via the provisioning
>     of received Service-ID, UDP and IP header information.
> 
> Possibly:
>     The incoming PREOF processing can be implemented by assigning
>     a Service-ID to the received DetNet flow and processing the
>     information in the UDP and IP headers.
> -->
> 
> 
> 10) <!-- [rfced] Section 5. Does the following list item contain multiple things (e.g., "PREOF and related Service-IDs")? If so, should they be on separate lines?
> 
> Original:
>     *  PREOF + related Service-ID(s).
> -->
> 
> 
> 11) <!-- [rfced] Informative References. FYI, we have updated the following reference to use the URL provided by the DOI. Please let us know if any updates are necessary.
> 
> Original:
>     [IEEE8021CB]
>                IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
>                networks - Frame Replication and Elimination for
>                Reliability", DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2017.8091139, October
>                2017,
>                <https://standards.ieee.org/standard/802_1CB-2017.html>.
> 
> Current:
>     [IEEE8021CB]
>                IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
>                networks - Frame Replication and Elimination for
>                Reliability", IEEE Std 802.1CB-2017,
>                DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2017.8091139, October 2017,
>                <https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2017.8091139>.
> -->
> 
> 
> 12) <!-- [rfced] Informative References. Because the original URL (https://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/cv-drafts/d1/802-1CBcv-d1-2.pdf) requires credentials to access, we recommend updating the reference to point to a landing page. We also note that the draft has been published as an Amendment.
> 
> Current:
>     [IEEEP8021CBcv]
>                Kehrer, S., "FRER YANG Data Model and Management
>                Information Base Module", IEEE P802.1CBcv
>                /D1.2 P802.1CBcv, March 2021,
>                <https://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/cv-drafts/d1/802-
>                1CBcv-d1-2.pdf>.
> 
> Perhaps:
>     [IEEE8021CBcv]
>                IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
>                networks - Frame Replication and Elimination for
>                Reliability - Amendment 1: Information Model, YANG Data
>                Model, and Management Information Base Module", Amendment
>                to IEEE Std 802.1CB-2017, IEEE Std 802.1CBcv-2021,
>                DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.9715061, February 2022,
>                <https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.9715061>.
> -->
> 
> 
> 13) <!-- [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.
> -->
> 
> 
> 14) <!-- [rfced] Terminology. May we hyphenate "PREOF capable" for ease of reading? For example:
> 
> Original:
>     Figure 5 shows using PREOF in a PREOF capable DetNet IP network...
> 
> Perhaps
>     Figure 5 shows using PREOF in a PREOF-capable DetNet IP network...
> -->
> 
> 
> 15) <!-- [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.
> 
> 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/jm
> 
> On 4/3/24 5:13 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> *****IMPORTANT*****
> 
> Updated 2024/04/03
> 
> 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/rfc9566.xml
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.html
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.pdf
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.txt
> 
> Diff file of the text:
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566-diff.html
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
> 
> Diff of the XML:
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566-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/rfc9566.original.v2v3.xml
> 
> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
> only:
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.form.xml
> 
> 
> Tracking progress
> -----------------
> 
> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9566
> 
> Please let us know if you have any questions.
> 
> Thank you for your cooperation,
> 
> RFC Editor
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC9566 (draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-11)
> 
> Title            : Deterministic Networking (DetNet): DetNet PREOF via MPLS over UDP/IP
> Author(s)        : B. Varga, J. Farkas, A. Malis
> WG Chair(s)      : Lou Berger, János Farkas
> 
> Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, John Scudder, Gunter Van de Velde
> 
>