Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9533 <draft-ietf-ippm-otwamp-on-lag-08> for your review

[Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]>]

Hi Greg,

Thanks for raising this question.

Currently, we see “micro" appearing with a hyphen in names of fields and TLVs.  The open form is used when talking about the sessions generally.  So, in this way, the use is consistent.

Current use of “micro" looks like the following in RFCs-to-be 9533 and 9534:

The following are open:
-----------------------
micro sessions
micro OWAMP session
micro TWAMP session
micro STAMP session
micro OWAMP-Test
micro TWAMP-Test
micro STAMP-Test
micro TWAMP-Control
micro OWAMP-Control
micro Session-Sender
micro Session-Reflector
micro TWAMP Session-Sender
micro OWAMP Session-Sender
micro STAMP Session-Sender
micro OWAMP Session-Receiver
micro TWAMP Session-Reflector
micro STAMP Session-Reflector

While the following are hyphenated:
----------------------------------
Micro-session ID field
Micro-session ID TLV
Sender Micro-session ID field
Reflector Micro-session ID field


That said, if we change “micro session” to “micro-session”: 

-we would still see “micro" used as a standalone instead of a combining form in the other instances listed above.  Hyphenating “micro" in those other instances above may not actually be helpful to the reader due to length and possible capping confusion (e.g., “micro-STAMP-Session-Reflector” and “micro-Session-Sender” vs. “micro-session”).

-would we need to change “micro OWAMP session” to “OWAMP micro-session” (same for TWAMP and STAMP)? If so, things get kind of strange with “micro OWAMP Session-Sender” (i.e., is it really “OWAMP micro-session Session-Sender)?

With the above info/concerns, please let us know how you’d like to proceed.
Thank you.

RFC Editor/mf/jm


> On Jan 24, 2024, at 1:33 PM, Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Dear, Megan et al.,
> I was reviewing this AUTH48 RFC-to-be 9533 and noticed that there are two forms: "micro-session" and "micro session". Checked back AUTH48 RFC-to-be-9534 to realize that both forms are used there as well. I think that it would be helpful to converge on using one form in both documents. Personally, I slightly prefer the "micro-session" form, but I can live with the other. WDYT?
> 
> Regards,
> Greg
> 
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 10:27 AM Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Rakesh,
> 
> Thanks for sending this along.  We’ve added this update to the current version. 
> 
>   The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9533.txt
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9533.pdf
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9533.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9533.xml
> 
>   The diff files have been posted here (please refresh):
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9533-diff.html (all changes)
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9533-rfcdiff.html (all changes side-by-side)
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9533-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes only)
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> RFC Editor/mf
> 
> 
> > On Jan 24, 2024, at 11:16 AM, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > Thanks Megan and authors for the review and edits.
> >  
> > One minor comment:
> > Could you please update my affiliate to - Cisco Systems, Inc.
> >  
> > Thanks,
> > Rakesh
> >  
> >  
> > From: Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]>
> > Date: Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 12:55 PM
> > To: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran=[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Zhukeyi(Kaiyin,Datacom Standard&Patent) <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9533 <draft-ietf-ippm-otwamp-on-lag-08> for your review
> > 
> > Tianran,
> > 
> > Thank you for the prompt reply!  We have updated the document based on your responses.
> > Please review carefully as we do not make updates once the document is published.
> > 
> >   The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9533.txt
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9533.pdf
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9533.html
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9533.xml
> > 
> >   The diff files have been posted here (please refresh):
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9533-diff.html (all changes)
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9533-rfcdiff.html (all changes side-by-side)
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9533-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes only)
> > 
> > We will await approvals from each author listed at the AUTH48 status page prior to moving 
> > this document forward in the publication process:
> > 
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9533
> > 
> > Thank you.
> > 
> > RFC Editor/mf
> > 
> > > On Jan 24, 2024, at 1:03 AM, Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran=[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Hi Editor,
> > > 
> > > Thanks very much for this revision.
> > > Please see in line with my confirmation.
> > > 
> > > Best,
> > > Tianran
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2024 2:45 AM
> > > To: [e-mail]; Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9533 <draft-ietf-ippm-otwamp-on-lag-08> for your review
> > > 
> > > Authors,
> > > 
> > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
> > > 
> > > 1) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions related to the document's
> > >     title:
> > > 
> > > a) Please note that we would like to update the title of the document as follows:
> > > 
> > > -Remove abbreviations for brevity/continuity (they are each expanded in the Abstract)
> > > 
> > > -Reword the title to clarify the slash.
> > > 
> > > Original:
> > > One-way/Two-way Active Measurement Protocol Extensions for Performance Measurement on LAG
> > > 
> > > Perhaps:
> > > One-Way and Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol Extensions for Performance Measurement on a Link Aggregation Group
> > > 
> > > b) Regarding the short/abbreviated title (that appears in the running header of the pdf): there was enough room to fit both OWAMP and TWAMP, so we have updated as follows.  Please let us know any objections.
> > > 
> > > Original:
> > > O/TWAMP PM on LAG
> > > 
> > > Current:
> > > OWAMP/TWAMP PM on LAG
> > > -->
> > > 
> > > ZTR> Agreed.
> > > 
> > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
> > > 
> > > ZTR> TWAMP, OWAMP, Performance Measurement, LAG, Micro Session
> > > 
> > > 3) <!-- [rfced] Section 1. We would like to clarify the use of "tuple" in
> > >     the sentences below and make its use more similar to uses in
> > >     other RFCs:
> > > 
> > > Current:
> > > With either method, one 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/all member links of the LAG by varying the five tuples.
> > > 
> > > Perhaps:
> > > With either method, one test session over the LAG can measure the performance of a member link using its fixed 5-tuples, or it can measure an average of some or all member links of the LAG by specifying their 5-tuples.
> > > 
> > > -->
> > > 
> > > ZTR> May revise like Greg's suggestion on RFC-to-be 9534 (draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag-06), as follows:
> > > With either method, one 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] In the following text, is the redundant phrase "of a LAG"
> > >     and "of the LAG" confusing?  Might a rephrase here be easier to
> > >     parse?  If our suggestion does not capture your intent, please
> > >     suggest another rephrase.
> > > 
> > > Original:
> > >   All micro sessions of a LAG share the same Sender IP Address and
> > >   Receiver IP Address of the LAG.
> > > 
> > > Perhaps A:
> > >   All micro sessions of a LAG share the same Sender IP Address and
> > >   Receiver IP Address.
> > > 
> > > Perhaps B:
> > >   All micro sessions share the LAG's same Sender IP Address and
> > >   Receiver IP Address.
> > > -->
> > > 
> > > ZTR> A is preferred.
> > > 
> > > 5) <!--[rfced] This document has a sentence very similar to one in
> > >     RFC-to-be 9534 (draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag-06).  May we update 
> > >     this document to match the use in that document (i.e., layer becomes
> > >     port)?
> > > 
> > > Original:
> > > As for the UDP layer, the micro
> > > sessions may share the same Sender Port and Receiver Port...
> > > 
> > > Perhaps:
> > > As for the UDP port, the micro
> > > sessions may share the same Sender Port and Receiver Port...
> > > -->
> > > 
> > > ZTR> Agreed.
> > > 
> > > 6) <!--[rfced] We had a few questions about the paragraph immediately
> > >     following Figure 3.
> > > 
> > > a) Should we update this text to make "field" plural?  Note this question also applies to the text following Figure 5 in Section 4.2.3.
> > > 
> > > Original:
> > > Except for the Sender/Reflector Micro-session ID field,...
> > > 
> > > Perhaps:
> > > Except for the Sender and Reflector Micro-session ID fields,...
> > > 
> > > Or perhaps:
> > > Except for the Sender Micro-session ID field and the Reflector Micro-session ID field,...
> > > 
> > > ZTR> I prefer the later one.
> > > 
> > > b) The citations in the text below are somewhat convoluted/stacked. How can something be (basically) "..defined in Section 4.1.2 of [RFC5357]...which is defined in Section 4.1.2 of [RFC4656]...so it follows Section 4.1.2 of [RFC5357]"?  Please clarify.
> > > 
> > > Original:
> > > ...all the other fields are the same as defined in Section 4.1.2 of TWAMP [RFC5357], which is defined in Section 4.1.2 of OWAMP [RFC4656].
> > > Therefore, it follows the same procedure and guidelines as defined in Section 4.1.2 of TWAMP [RFC5357].
> > > 
> > > Perhaps:
> > > ...all the other fields depecited in Figure 3 are the same as defined for OWAMP in Section 4.1.2 of [RFC4656], which is further built on for TWAMP in Section 4.1.2 of [RFC5357]; the same procedure and guidelines defined in Section 4.1.2 of [RFC5357] apply.
> > > 
> > > c) The text before Figure 2 seems very similar to the text we point out in b) above.  Should this text be made more similar (i.e., Section
> > > 4.1.2 of RFC 5357 seems to build on Section 4.1.2 of RFC 4656 as well, right?)?
> > > 
> > > Original:
> > > The micro TWAMP Session-Sender packet format is based on the TWAMP Session-Sender packet format as defined in Section 4.1.2 of [RFC5357].
> > > Two new fields (Sender Micro-session ID and Reflector Micro-session
> > > ID) are added to carry the LAG member link identifiers.
> > > 
> > > Perhaps:
> > > The micro TWAMP Session-Sender packet format is based on the TWAMP Session-Sender packet format described in Section 4.1.2 of [RFC5357], which is based on the OWAMP format in Section 4.1.2 of [RFC4656].  Two new fields (Sender Micro-session ID and Reflector Micro-session ID) are added to carry the LAG member link identifiers.
> > > 
> > > Note: for b) and c) above, we could also simply point the reader to Section 4.1.2 of RFC 5357 and let them follow the citations in that document to RFC 4656 (i.e., remove mentions of RFC 4656).
> > > -->
> > > 
> > > ZTR> I agree with the Note. For both b and c, we can simplify the description. Your interpretation is correct. Section 4.1.2 of TWAMP [RFC5357] does not actually gives the specification, it just refers to Section 4.1.2 of OWAMP [RFC4656].
> > > 
> > > 7) <!--[rfced] For Figures 4 and 5, we note that the "bit ruler" at the
> > >     top is aligned differently than appears in Figures 2 and 3.  We
> > >     note that these figures seem to be copies of the figures in
> > >     Section 4.2.1 of RFC 5357.  May we adjust Figures 4 and 5 to match 
> > >     Figures 2 and 3?-->
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ZTR> Yes, you are right. We should shift the bit ruler. We adjust Figures 4 and 5 to match Figures 2 and 3.
> > > 
> > > 8) <!--[rfced] We had two questions based on reviewing Figure 5:
> > > 
> > > a) In RFC 5357, the figure that Figure 5 is based on is introduced with "For authenticated and encrypted modes".  Please confirm that this document should use only "For authenticated mode".
> > > 
> > > b) We note that the figure in RFC 5357 uses "MBZ (6 octets)" following "Error Estimate" while this document does not mention the number of octets in that position (but does mention octet counts for the other two MBZ entries).  Please review if an update should be made.
> > > 
> > > -->
> > > 
> > > ZTR> For a), it should be "authenticated and encrypted modes", not only figure 5, but also figure 3.
> > >           For b), no need for update. The proposal just uses the later 4 octet for Sender Micro-session ID and Reflector Micro-session ID.
> > > 
> > > 9) <!--[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>.
> > > -->
> > > 
> > > ZTR> I checked the IEEE802.1AX standard. The latest one is 802.1AX-2020.  I would like to update the reference information as follows:
> > > IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks - Link Aggregation", IEEE Std 802.1AX-2020, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2020.9105034, May 2020, <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9105034>.
> > > 
> > > 10) <!--[rfced] Please note that we have removed the reference entry for
> > >     RFC 9256 as we see no corresponding citation in the document.
> > >     Please review and let us know any objections.-->
> > > 
> > > ZTR> Agreed.
> > > 
> > > 11) <!-- [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.
> > > 
> > > -->
> > > 
> > > ZTR> I don't find any updates.
> > > 
> > > 12) <!-- [rfced] We had the following questions about terminology as it
> > >     appeared throughout the document:
> > > 
> > > Please let us know if the following instance should be made "test" (lowercase) or "OWAMP-Test".
> > > 
> > > Original:
> > > If there is no such a session, the Test packet MUST be discarded.
> > > 
> > > Perhaps A:
> > > If there is no such a session, the test packet MUST be discarded.
> > > 
> > > Perhaps B:
> > > If there is no such a session, the OWAMP-Test packet MUST be discarded.
> > > -->
> > > 
> > > ZTR> A is preferred.
> > > 
> > > Thank you.
> > > 
> > > RFC Editor/mf
> > > 
> > > *****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/).
> > > 
> > > 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/rfc9533.xml
> > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9533.html
> > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9533.pdf
> > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9533.txt
> > > 
> > > Diff file of the text:
> > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9533-diff.html
> > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9533-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
> > > 
> > > Diff of the XML: 
> > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9533-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/rfc9533.original.v2v3.xml 
> > > 
> > > XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
> > > only: 
> > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9533.form.xml
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Tracking progress
> > > -----------------
> > > 
> > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
> > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9533
> > > 
> > > Please let us know if you have any questions.  
> > > 
> > > Thank you for your cooperation,
> > > 
> > > RFC Editor
> > > 
> > > --------------------------------------
> > > RFC9533 (draft-ietf-ippm-otwamp-on-lag-08)
> > > 
> > > Title            : One-way/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
> > 
>