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

["Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Jean and co-authors for your review and updates.

Looks good to me, I approve the document.

Thanks,
Rakesh


From: Jean Mahoney <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, January 26, 2024 at 12:53 PM
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>, Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, IPPM Chairs <[e-mail]>, marcus.ihlar <[e-mail]>, Martin Duke <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Zhukeyi (Kaiyin, Enterprise NE) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9534 <draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag-06> for your review
Greg, Tianran,

We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page:

    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9534


Tianran, Rakesh,

We have updated the document with your feedback:

    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-lastrfcdiff.html


We will await further word from Rakesh and Jun regarding other AUTH48
changes and/or approval.

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
    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-rfcdiff.html
    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-auth48diff.html
    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-lastdiff.html


Best Regards,
RFC Editor/jm



On 1/24/24 10:58 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> Dear Jean and coauthors,
>
> I approve the changes and Tianran's suggestion. Thanks Jean.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Best Regards,
> Zhenqiang Li
> China Mobile
> [e-mail]
>
>     *From:* Tianran Zhou <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Date:* 2024-01-25 09:06
>     *To:* Jean Mahoney <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; Greg
>     Mirsky <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *CC:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; Rakesh
>     Gandhi (rgandhi) <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>; IPPM Chairs
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>; marcus.ihlar
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>; Martin Duke
>     <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 Jean,
>     Thanks for your work. I approve the current version of the document.
>     One nit I want to sync with RFC-to-be 9533.
>     OLD TEXT:
>         All micro sessions of a LAG share the same Sender IP Address and
>         Receiver IP Address of the LAG.
>     NEW TEXT:
>         All micro sessions of a LAG share the same Sender IP Address and
>         Receiver IP Address.
>     Best,
>     Tianran
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: Jean Mahoney [mailto:[e-mail]]
>     Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2024 11:20 PM
>     To: [e-mail]; Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>;
>     Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>     Cc: [e-mail]; Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
>     <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; IPPM Chairs
>     <[e-mail]>; marcus.ihlar <[e-mail]>;
>     Martin Duke <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
>     Zhukeyi(Kaiyin,Datacom Standard&Patent) <[e-mail]>
>     Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9534
>     <draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag-06> for your review
>     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-4Q9l2USxI
>      > Ae6P8O4Zc
>      >
>     <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USx
>      > IAe6P8O4Zc>
>      >
>      >               *  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
>      >
>