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


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.
-->


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.
-->


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.

-->


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? -->


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.
-->


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.
-->


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. -->


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


-->


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