Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9566 <draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-11> for your review

["Andrew G. Malis" <[e-mail]>]

I also agree, with the changes listed below the document is ready for
publication.

Cheers,
Andy


On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 10:16 AM Balázs Varga A <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi JM,
> Many thanks for your great comments/suggestions. Please find reactions
> inline.
> With these changes I confirm that the document is ready for publication.
> Kind regards
> Bala'zs
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2024 12:18 AM
> To: Balázs Varga A <[e-mail]>; Janos Farkas <
> [e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9566
> <draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-11> 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] Title. FYI, we have expanded PREOF in the title to match
> our guidance on expanding abbreviations upon first use. Could the title be
> shortened by removing an instance of "DetNet"?
>
> Original:
>   Deterministic Networking (DetNet): DetNet PREOF via MPLS over UDP/IP
>
> Current:
>   Deterministic Networking (DetNet): DetNet Packet Replication,
>   Elimination, and Ordering Functions (PREOF) via MPLS over UDP/IP
>
> Perhaps:
>   Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Packet Replication, Elimination,
>   and Ordering Functions (PREOF) via MPLS over UDP/IP
> -->
> <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Thanks.
>
>
> 2) <!-- [rfced] Title. FYI, we have made the short title, which is
> displayed in the header of the PDF, consistent with the title of the RFC.
> Please let us know if any changes are necessary.
>
> Original:
>   PREOF DetNet IP
>
> Current:
>   DetNet PREOF via MPLS over UDP/IP
> -->
> <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Thanks.
>
>
> 3) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
> the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search.
> -->
> <Balazs> Suggested keywords: DetNet, IP Data Plane, Service sub-layer,
> Replication, Elimination, Ordering.
>
>
> 4) <!-- [rfced] Section 3. Because "practically" usually means "almost"
> and "gains" typically means "acquires", may we update the following
> sentence?
>
> Original:
>    The described solution practically gains from MPLS header fields
>    without requiring the support of the MPLS forwarding plane.
>
> Perhaps:
>    The described solution leverages MPLS header fields
>    without requiring the support of the MPLS forwarding plane.
> -->
> <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Thanks.
>
>
> 5) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.3. FYI, we have updated the following sentence
> to improve clarity. Please let us know if any updates are necessary.
>
> Original:
>    Note, that Service-IDs is a local ID on the receiver side providing
>    identification of the DetNet flow at the downstream DetNet service
>    sub-layer receiver.
>
> Current:
>    Note that the Service-ID is a local ID on the receiver side that
>    identifies the DetNet flow at the downstream DetNet service
>    sub-layer receiver.
> -->
> <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Thanks.
>
>
> 6) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.4. Does the sentence below mean that the nodes
> are configured with the aggregation method?
>
> Original:
>    The option used for aggregation is known by configuration of the
>    aggregation/de-aggregation nodes.
>
> Perhaps:
>    The aggregation method is configured in the
>    aggregation/de-aggregation nodes.
> -->
> <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Thanks.
>
>
> 7) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.5. Is only a Service-ID used to identify a flow
> or is a Service-ID used with other information to identify a flow?
>
> Original:
>    A Service-ID can be allocated to be unique and enabling
>    DetNet flow identification regardless of which input interface or UDP
>    tunnel the packet is received.
>
> Perhaps:
>    A unique Service-ID can be allocated and can be used
>    to identify a DetNet flow regardless of which input interface or UDP
>    tunnel receives the packet.
> -->
> <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Thanks. If the Service-ID is unique, no
> other information is needed.
>
>
> 8) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.5. The following sentence implies that there is
> a single header that contains both UDP and IP information.
>
> Original:
>    ...each member flow requires their own Service-ID, UDP
>    and IP header information.
>
> Perhaps:
>    ...each member flow requires its own Service-ID, UDP
>    header information, and IP header information.
> -->
> <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Thanks.
>
>
> 9) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.5. Is part of the processing the assignment of
> the Service-ID? Is the header information assigned?
>
> Original:
>    The incoming PREOF processing can be implemented via the provisioning
>    of received Service-ID, UDP and IP header information.
>
> Possibly:
>    The incoming PREOF processing can be implemented by assigning
>    a Service-ID to the received DetNet flow and processing the
>    information in the UDP and IP headers.
> -->
> <Balazs> Assigning a Service-ID is a prerequisite for data plane
> processing.
> So, I think your suggestion describes better the operation. Thanks.
>
>
> 10) <!-- [rfced] Section 5. Does the following list item contain multiple
> things (e.g., "PREOF and related Service-IDs")? If so, should they be on
> separate lines?
>
> Original:
>    *  PREOF + related Service-ID(s).
> -->
> <Balazs> Good catch, here we have two information elements. Proposed
> change:
> Original:
>    *  PREOF + related Service-ID(s).
> NEW:
>    *  Type of PREOF to be executed on the DetNet flow.
>    *  Service-ID(s) used by the member flows.
> END
>
>
> 11) <!-- [rfced] Informative References. FYI, we have updated the
> following reference to use the URL provided by the DOI. Please let us know
> if any updates are necessary.
>
> Original:
>    [IEEE8021CB]
>               IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
>               networks - Frame Replication and Elimination for
>               Reliability", DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2017.8091139, October
>               2017,
>               <https://standards.ieee.org/standard/802_1CB-2017.html>.
>
> Current:
>    [IEEE8021CB]
>               IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
>               networks - Frame Replication and Elimination for
>               Reliability", IEEE Std 802.1CB-2017,
>               DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2017.8091139, October 2017,
>               <https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2017.8091139>.
> -->
> <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Thanks.
>
>
> 12) <!-- [rfced] Informative References. Because the original URL (
> https://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/cv-drafts/d1/802-1CBcv-d1-2.pdf)
> requires credentials to access, we recommend updating the reference to
> point to a landing page. We also note that the draft has been published as
> an Amendment.
>
> Current:
>    [IEEEP8021CBcv]
>               Kehrer, S., "FRER YANG Data Model and Management
>               Information Base Module", IEEE P802.1CBcv
>               /D1.2 P802.1CBcv, March 2021,
>               <https://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/cv-drafts/d1/802-
>               1CBcv-d1-2.pdf>.
>
> Perhaps:
>    [IEEE8021CBcv]
>               IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
>               networks - Frame Replication and Elimination for
>               Reliability - Amendment 1: Information Model, YANG Data
>               Model, and Management Information Base Module", Amendment
>               to IEEE Std 802.1CB-2017, IEEE Std 802.1CBcv-2021,
>               DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.9715061, February 2022,
>               <https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.9715061>.
> -->
> <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Thanks.
>
>
> 13) <!-- [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.
> -->
> <Balazs> Your changes are OK. Thanks.
>
>
> 14) <!-- [rfced] Terminology. May we hyphenate "PREOF capable" for ease of
> reading? For example:
>
> Original:
>    Figure 5 shows using PREOF in a PREOF capable DetNet IP network...
>
> Perhaps
>    Figure 5 shows using PREOF in a PREOF-capable DetNet IP network...
> -->
> <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Please do this change also in the titles
> of Fig2, Fig3, and 4.6 Section. Many thanks.
>
>
> 15) <!-- [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.
> -->
> <Balazs> Yes, I have reviewed "Inclusive Language". No changes are needed.
>
>
> Thank you.
>
> RFC Editor/jm
>
> On 4/3/24 5:13 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>
> *****IMPORTANT*****
>
> Updated 2024/04/03
>
> 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/rfc9566.xml
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.pdf
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.txt
>
> Diff file of the text:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566-diff.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>
> Diff of the XML:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566-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/rfc9566.original.v2v3.xml
>
> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
> only:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.form.xml
>
>
> Tracking progress
> -----------------
>
> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9566
>
> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>
> Thank you for your cooperation,
>
> RFC Editor
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC9566 (draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-11)
>
> Title            : Deterministic Networking (DetNet): DetNet PREOF via
> MPLS over UDP/IP
> Author(s)        : B. Varga, J. Farkas, A. Malis
> WG Chair(s)      : Lou Berger, János Farkas
>
> Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, John Scudder, Gunter Van de Velde
>
>
>