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

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Dear RFC Editor,
thank you for preparing the document for the publication and suggesting
helpful updates to improve the draft. Please find my answers to your
questions below tagged GIM>>.
In addition to the updates applied by RFC Editor, I came to realize that
two definitions can benefit from a minor update:
OLD:
   *  In-band OAM is an active OAM that is in-band within the monitored
      DetNet OAM domain when it traverses the same set of links and
      interfaces receiving the same QoS and Packet Replication,
      Elimination, and Ordering Functions (PREOF) treatment as the
      monitored DetNet flow.
NEW:
   *  In-band OAM is an active OAM method that is in-band within the
monitored
      DetNet OAM domain when it traverses the same set of links and
      interfaces receiving the same QoS and Packet Replication,
      Elimination, and Ordering Functions (PREOF) treatment as the
      monitored DetNet flow.

And one more:
OLD:
   *  Out-of-band OAM is an active OAM whose path through the DetNet
      domain is not topologically identical to the path of the monitored
      DetNet flow, or its test packets receive different QoS and/or
      PREOF treatment, or both.
NEW:
   *  Out-of-band OAM is an active OAM method whose path through the DetNet
      domain may not be topologically identical to the path of the monitored
      DetNet flow, or its test packets receive different QoS and/or
      PREOF treatment, or both.

Regards,
Greg

On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 11:08 AM <[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. -->
>
GIM>> Apologies for not cleaning our workplace ;)

>
>
> 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.  -->
>
>
> 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.
>
GIM>> I agree with the proposed updates; it is indeed clearer and easier to
read.

> -->
>
>
> 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.
>
GIM>> Thank you for the proposed update. Of course, DetNet cannot expect
anything. I agree with the update.

> -->
>
>
> 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.
>
GIM>> Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the text. Your update
is most helpful and significantly improves the readability of the
paragraph; thank you! I approve the update.

>
> -->
>
>
> 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? -->
>
GIM>> It seems like an abbreviation does not necessarily provide the
definition of the term. Perhaps the two sections can be merged under one
title, "Abbreviations and Definitions"? Or keep them separate as is.

>
>
> 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.
>
GIM>> I believe that the proposed rewording improves the text. 'it' refers
to "the most critical [DetNet] applications". These applications generate
DetNet flows, which are required to conform to the pre-defined SLOs. (I
hope that I have not confused things further.) I approve the update.

> -->
>
>
> 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.
>
GIM>> I may propose s/criteria/performance/, but I can live with the
removal of 'criteria' altogether.

> -->
>
>
> 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. -->
>
GIM>> Thank you for catching that. Please use the
draft-ietf-ippm-hybrid-two-step reference.

>
>
> 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
>
GIM>> Upon reading the sentence several times, I think that 'natively' can
be removed without any loss of information.

>
>
> -->
>
>
> Thank you.
>
> RFC Editor/mf
>
> *****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
>
>
>