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

["Georgios Z. Papadopoulos" <[e-mail]>]

Dear Megan,

I reviewed all the updates and approve the document.

Best,
Georgios


> On 6 Mar 2024, at 08:05, CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Megan,
> 
> I reviewed all the updates and approve the document.
> 
> Thanks a lot,
> 
> Carlos
> 
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 7:11 AM Balázs Varga A <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> Hi Megan,
>> 
>> I have reviewed all the updates as well and approve the document.
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>> Bala’zs
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 9:37 PM
>> To: Megan Ferguson <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> Cc: CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Georgios Z. Papadopoulos <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Fabrice Theoleyre <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Balázs Varga A <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; RFC Editor <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Janos Farkas <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; DetNet Chairs <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Lou Berger <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; John Scudder <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9551 <draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework-11> for your review
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Hi Megan,
>> 
>> thank you foryour kind consideration of my question and the most detailed response.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I reviewed all the updates and approve the document.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Greg
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 10:16 AM Megan Ferguson <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Greg,
>> 
>> Good question.  Thanks for asking!
>> 
>> This is a quote of a partial sentence from RFC 7799, which fully states.  
>> 
>>    Hybrid Methods are Methods of Measurement that use a combination of
>>    Active Methods and Passive Methods, to assess Active Metrics, Passive
>>    Metrics, or new metrics derived from the a priori knowledge and
>>    observations of the stream of interest. 
>> 
>> We were attempting to communicate that the full sentence was not included.
>> However, upon digging deeper, we see in the Chicago Manual of Style:
>> 
>> Ellipses are normally not used (1) before the first word of a quotation, even 
>> if the beginning of the original sentence has been omitted; or (2) after the last 
>> word of a quotation, even if the end of the original sentence has been omitted, 
>> unless the sentence as quoted is deliberately incomplete (see 13.55).
>> 
>> Because the quoted material could be a full (grammatically complete) sentence, 
>> we have reverted this change as requested.  
>> 
>> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9551.txt
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9551.pdf
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9551.html
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9551.xml
>> 
>> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh):
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9551-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9551-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes only)
>>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9551-lastdiff.html (last to current version only)
>> 
>> The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here:
>> 
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9551
>> 
>> Thank you.
>> 
>> RFC Editor/mf
>> 
>> 
>> > On Mar 4, 2024, at 6:10 PM, Greg Mirsky <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> > 
>> > Hi Megan,
>> > everything looks perfect. I've noticed one quote in Section 3.7:
>> >    |  Hybrid Methods are Methods of Measurement that use a combination
>> >    |  of Active Methods and Passive Methods...
>> > that appears differently in the current version of the draft:
>> >       Hybrid Methods are Methods of Measurement that use a combination
>> >       of Active Methods and Passive Methods.
>> > 
>> > Is there a reason for this? To me, the latter format looks better. WDYT?
>> > 
>> > Regards,
>> > Greg
>> > 
>> > On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 4:56 PM Megan Ferguson <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> > Greg, Fabrice, Georgios, and Carlos,
>> > 
>> > Thank you for your replies.  We have updated accordingly.
>> > 
>> > Please review the files carefully as we do not make changes after publication.  
>> > 
>> > Note: we did not see anyone reply to the keywords request.  
>> > We will assume the words in the title are sufficient unless we hear otherwise.
>> > 
>> > The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9551.txt
>> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9551.pdf
>> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9551.html
>> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9551.xml
>> > 
>> > The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh):
>> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9551-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
>> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9551-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes only)
>> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9551-lastdiff.html (last to current version only)
>> > 
>> > Please contact us with any further updates/questions/comments you may have.  
>> > 
>> > We will await approvals from each of the parties listed on the AUTH48 status page prior to moving forward to publication.  
>> > 
>> > The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here:
>> > 
>> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9551
>> > 
>> > Thank you.
>> > 
>> > RFC Editor/mf
>> > 
>> > > On Mar 4, 2024, at 6:50 AM, CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> > > 
>> > > Thanks. I don't have anything to add and I agree with the proposed changes and replies by the co-authors.
>> > > 
>> > > Carlos
>> > > 
>> > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 10:38 AM Georgios Z. Papadopoulos <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> > > Dear RFC editor,
>> > > 
>> > > Thank you for your work and comments.
>> > > 
>> > > > On 1 Mar 2024, at 20:08, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > > > 
>> > > > 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.  -->
>> > > 
>> > > [GP] Many thanks. No 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.
>> > > > -->
>> > > 
>> > > [GP] +1
>> > > Thanks for the reformulation.
>> > > 
>> > > > 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.
>> > > > -->
>> > > 
>> > > [GP] +1
>> > > Thanks for the reformulation.
>> > > 
>> > > > 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.
>> > > > 
>> > > > -->
>> > > 
>> > > [GP] +1
>> > > Thanks for the reformulation.
>> > > 
>> > > > 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? -->
>> > > 
>> > > [GP] +1
>> > > 
>> > > > 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.
>> > > > -->
>> > > 
>> > > [GP] +1
>> > > Thanks for the reformulation.
>> > > 
>> > > > 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.
>> > > > -->
>> > > 
>> > > [GP] +1
>> > > Thanks for the reformulation.
>> > > It makes more sense now indeed.
>> > > 
>> > > > 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
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > Many thanks,
>> > > Georgios
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > > *****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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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
>> > > > 
>> > > > 
>> > > 
>> >
>>