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


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
-->


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


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.
-->


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.
-->


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.
-->


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.  
-->


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.
-->


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.
-->


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).
-->


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>.
-->


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>.
-->


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.
-->


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...
-->


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.
-->


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