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

[CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <[e-mail]>]

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
> >
> >
>
>