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

[Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]>]

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]> 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]> 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]> 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]> wrote:
> > Dear RFC editor,
> > 
> > Thank you for your work and comments.
> > 
> > > On 1 Mar 2024, at 20:08, [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] (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
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
>