Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9534 <draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag-06> for your review

[Jean Mahoney <[e-mail]>]

Rakesh,

We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page:

    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9534

And we will await word from Jun regarding other AUTH48 changes and/or 
approval.

Best regards,
RFC Editor/jm


On 1/26/24 11:59 AM, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) wrote:
> Thanks Jean and co-authors for your review and updates.
> 
> Looks good to me, I approve the document.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Rakesh
> 
> *From: *Jean Mahoney <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Friday, January 26, 2024 at 12:53 PM
> *To: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Tianran Zhou 
> <[e-mail]>, Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>, 
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) 
> <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, IPPM Chairs 
> <[e-mail]>, marcus.ihlar <[e-mail]>, Martin 
> Duke <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] 
> <[e-mail]>, Zhukeyi (Kaiyin, Enterprise NE) 
> <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9534 <draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag-06> 
> for your review
> 
> Greg, Tianran,
> 
> We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page:
> 
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9534 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9534>
> 
> 
> Tianran, Rakesh,
> 
> We have updated the document with your feedback:
> 
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-lastrfcdiff.html 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-lastrfcdiff.html>
> 
> 
> We will await further word from Rakesh and Jun regarding other AUTH48
> changes and/or approval.
> 
> The files have been posted here:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.txt 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.txt>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.pdf 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.pdf>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.html 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.html>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.xml 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.xml>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-diff.html 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-diff.html>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-rfcdiff.html 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-rfcdiff.html>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-auth48diff.html 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-auth48diff.html>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-lastdiff.html 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-lastdiff.html>
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> RFC Editor/jm
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/24/24 10:58 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>> Dear Jean and coauthors,
>> 
>> I approve the changes and Tianran's suggestion. Thanks Jean.
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Best Regards,
>> Zhenqiang Li
>> China Mobile
>> [e-mail]
>> 
>>     *From:* Tianran Zhou <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>     *Date:* 2024-01-25 09:06
>>     *To:* Jean Mahoney <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>;
>>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Greg
>>     Mirsky <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; 
> [e-mail]
>>     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>     *CC:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Rakesh
>>     Gandhi (rgandhi) <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]
>>     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; IPPM Chairs
>>     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; marcus.ihlar
>>     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; 
> Martin Duke
>>     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; 
> [e-mail]
>>     <mailto:[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Zhukeyi(Kaiyin,Datacom
>>     Standard&Patent) <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>     *Subject:* RE: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9534
>>     <draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag-06> for your review
>>     Hi Jean,
>>     Thanks for your work. I approve the current version of the document.
>>     One nit I want to sync with RFC-to-be 9533.
>>     OLD TEXT:
>>         All micro sessions of a LAG share the same Sender IP Address and
>>         Receiver IP Address of the LAG.
>>     NEW TEXT:
>>         All micro sessions of a LAG share the same Sender IP Address and
>>         Receiver IP Address.
>>     Best,
>>     Tianran
>>     -----Original Message-----
>>     From: Jean Mahoney [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>]
>>     Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2024 11:20 PM
>>     To: [e-mail]; Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>;
>>     Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>>     Cc: [e-mail]; Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
>>     <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; IPPM Chairs
>>     <[e-mail]>; marcus.ihlar <[e-mail]>;
>>     Martin Duke <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
>>     Zhukeyi(Kaiyin,Datacom Standard&Patent) <[e-mail]>
>>     Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9534
>>     <draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag-06> for your review
>>     Zhenqiang, Greg, Tianran,
>>     Thank you for your quick responses! We have updated the document
>>     based on your feedback:
>>         
>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/authors/rfc9534-lastrfcdiff.html 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/authors/rfc9534-lastrfcdiff.html>
>>     Zhenqiang, we have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page:
>>          https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9534 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9534>
>>     The files have been posted here:
>>          https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.txt 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.txt>
>>          https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.pdf 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.pdf>
>>          https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.html 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.html>
>>          https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.xml 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.xml>
>>          https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-diff.html 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-diff.html> (all changes)
>>          https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-rfcdiff.html 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-rfcdiff.html> (all
>>     changes side by side)
>>          https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-auth48diff.html 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-auth48diff.html>
>>          https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-alt-diff.html 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-alt-diff.html>
>>     We will await further word from you and your coauthors regarding other
>>     AUTH48 changes and/or approval.
>>     Best regards,
>>     RFC Editor/jm
>>     On 1/23/24 10:13 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>      > Hello Editor and coauthors,
>>      >
>>      > I have no objection on Greg's and Tianran's suggestion.
>>      >
>>      >
>>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>      > --
>>      > Best Regards,
>>      > Zhenqiang Li
>>      > China Mobile
>>      > [e-mail]
>>      >
>>      >     *From:* Tianran Zhou <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>      >     *Date:* 2024-01-24 11:08
>>      >     *To:* Greg Mirsky <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>;
>>      >     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>      >     *CC:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>;
>>      >     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>;
>>     [e-mail]
>>      >     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]
>>      >     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]
>>      >     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; 
> [e-mail]
>>      >     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; 
> [e-mail]
>>      >     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; 
> [e-mail]
>>      >     <mailto:[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Zhukeyi(Kaiyin,Datacom
>>      >     Standard&Patent) <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>      >     *Subject:* RE: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9534
>>      >     <draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag-06> for your review
>>      >
>>      >     Hi Editor and Greg,
>>      >
>>      >     I prefer Greg’s change on this.
>>      >
>>      >     GIM>> Thank you for the question and proposed update. I agree
>>     that
>>      >     the first occurence of "tuple" must be singular. The second, as I
>>      >     think of how it works, is about modifying some elements of the
>>      >     5-tuple. I would propose the following update:
>>      >
>>      >     OLD TEXT:
>>      >
>>      >         One STAMP 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 or all member links of the LAG by varying the five
>>     tuples.
>>      >
>>      >     NEW TEXT:
>>      >
>>      >         A STAMP test session over the LAG can be used to measure the
>>      >     performance of a
>>      >
>>      >         member link using specially-constructed 5-tuple. The
>>     session can
>>      >     be used to measure an average of
>>      >
>>      >         some or all member links of the LAG by varying one or more
>>      >     elements  of that 5-tuple.
>>      >
>>      >     Cheers,
>>      >
>>      >     Tianran
>>      >
>>      >     *From:*Greg Mirsky [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>]
>>      >     *Sent:* Wednesday, January 24, 2024 10:53 AM
>>      >     *To:* [e-mail]
>>      >     *Cc:* [e-mail]; Tianran Zhou
>>      >     <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>>      >     [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>>     [e-mail];
>>      >     [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>      >     *Subject:* Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9534
>>      >     <draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag-06> for your review
>>      >
>>      >     Dear RFC Editor,
>>      >
>>      >     thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the document and
>>      >     helpful suggestions to improve it. Please find my responses
>>     to your
>>      >     questions below tagged by GIM>>. Please let me know if there
>>     are any
>>      >     further questions or actions I should take.
>>      >
>>      >     Regards,
>>      >
>>      >     Greg
>>      >
>>      >     On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 10:44 AM <[e-mail]
>>      >     <mailto:[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] We have updated the title of the document by
>>      >         expanding LAG. Please let us know if any changes are
>>     necessary.
>>      >
>>      >         Original:
>>      >           Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol Extensions for
>>      >         Performance
>>      >                                     Measurement on LAG
>>      >
>>      >         Current:
>>      >           Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol Extensions for
>>      >         Performance
>>      >                             Measurement on a Link Aggregation Group
>>      >
>>      >     GIM>> I agree with the proposed text.
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >         -->
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >         2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that
>>      >         appear in
>>      >         the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search <https://www.rfc-editor.org/search>
>>      >         <https://www.rfc-editor.org/search <https://www.rfc-editor.org/search>>. -->
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >         3) <!-- [rfced] Section 1. We would like to clarify the
>>     use of
>>      >         "tuple" in the sentence below:
>>      >
>>      >         Current:
>>      >
>>      >             One STAMP 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 or all member links of the LAG by varying the
>>     five tuples.
>>      >
>>      >         Perhaps (updating "five tuple" to "5-tuple", which is more
>>      >         commonly used; making the first use of "tuple" singular; and
>>      >         changing "varying the five tuples" to "specifying their
>>     5-tuples"):
>>      >
>>      >             One STAMP test session over the LAG can measure the
>>      >         performance of a
>>      >             member link using its fixed 5-tuple, or it can measure an
>>      >         average of
>>      >             some or all member links of the LAG by specifying their
>>      >         5-tuples.
>>      >
>>      >     GIM>> Thank you for the question and proposed update. I agree
>>     that
>>      >     the first occurence of "tuple" must be singular. The second, as I
>>      >     think of how it works, is about modifying some elements of the
>>      >     5-tuple. I would propose the following update:
>>      >
>>      >     OLD TEXT:
>>      >
>>      >         One STAMP 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 or all member links of the LAG by varying the five
>>     tuples.
>>      >
>>      >     NEW TEXT:
>>      >
>>      >         A STAMP test session over the LAG can be used to measure the
>>      >     performance of a
>>      >
>>      >         member link using specially-constructed 5-tuple. The
>>     session can
>>      >     be used to measure an average of
>>      >
>>      >         some or all member links of the LAG by varying one or more
>>      >     elements  of that 5-tuple.
>>      >
>>      >         -->
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >         4) <!-- [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
>>      >         <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4668665 
> <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4668665>>>.
>>      >
>>      >     GIM>> Yes, please update the reference to the latest.
>>      >
>>      >         -->
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >         5) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language"
>>     portion
>>      >         of the online Style Guide
>>      >        
>>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language
>>      >        
>>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language 
> <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.
>>      >
>>      >     GIM>> I don't find any updates
>>      >
>>      >         -->
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >         6) <!-- [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.
>>      >
>>      >     GIM>> All expansions are correct.
>>      >
>>      >         -->
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >         Thank you.
>>      >
>>      >         RFC Editor/jm
>>      >
>>      >         On 1/23/24 12:41 PM, [e-mail]
>>      >         <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>      >
>>      >         *****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/
>>      >         <https://www.rfc-editor.org/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/ 
> <https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/>
>>      >         <https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/ 
> <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
>>      >         <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary 
> <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] <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] 
> <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-4Q9l2USxI 
> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxI>
>>      > Ae6P8O4Zc
>>      >
>>     <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USx
>>      > IAe6P8O4Zc>
>>      >
>>      >               *  The archive itself:
>>      >         https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ 
> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/>
>>      >         <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ 
> <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] 
> <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/rfc9534.xml 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.xml>
>>      >         <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.xml 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.xml>>
>>      >         https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.html 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.html>
>>      >         <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.html 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.html>>
>>      >         https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.pdf 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.pdf>
>>      >         <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.pdf 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.pdf>>
>>      >         https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.txt 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.txt>
>>      >         <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.txt 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.txt>>
>>      >
>>      >         Diff file of the text:
>>      >         https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-diff.html 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-diff.html>
>>      >         <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-diff.html 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-diff.html>>
>>      >         https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-rfcdiff.html 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-rfcdiff.html>
>>      >         <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-rfcdiff.html 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-rfcdiff.html>>
>>     (side
>>      >         by side)
>>      >
>>      >         For your convenience, we have also created an alt-diff
>>     file that
>>      >         will
>>      >         allow you to more easily view changes where text has been
>>     deleted or
>>      >         moved:
>>      >         http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-alt-diff.html 
> <http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-alt-diff.html>
>>      >         <http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-alt-diff.html 
> <http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-alt-diff.html>>
>>      >
>>      >         Diff of the XML:
>>      >         https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-xmldiff1.html 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-xmldiff1.html>
>>      >         <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-xmldiff1.html 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-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/rfc9534.original.v2v3.xml 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.original.v2v3.xml>
>>      >        
>>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.original.v2v3.xml 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.original.v2v3.xml>>
>>      >
>>      >         XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format
>>      >         updates
>>      >         only:
>>      >         https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.form.xml 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.form.xml>
>>      >         <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.form.xml 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.form.xml>>
>>      >
>>      >
>>      >         Tracking progress
>>      >         -----------------
>>      >
>>      >         The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>      >         https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9534 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9534>
>>      >         <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9534 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9534>>
>>      >
>>      >         Please let us know if you have any questions.
>>      >
>>      >         Thank you for your cooperation,
>>      >
>>      >         RFC Editor
>>      >
>>      >         --------------------------------------
>>      >         RFC9534 (draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag-06)
>>      >
>>      >         Title            : Simple 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
>>      >
>> 
>