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

[[e-mail]]

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
-->


2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->


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.

-->


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.
-->


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...
-->


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,...

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).

-->


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?-->


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.

-->


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>.
-->


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.-->


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.

-->


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.
-->


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