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

[Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>]

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]] 
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

Zhenqiang, we have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page:

    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.pdf
    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.html
    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.xml
    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-diff.html (all changes)
    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-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]>
>     *Date:* 2024-01-24 11:08
>     *To:* Greg Mirsky <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *CC:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>; Zhukeyi(Kaiyin,Datacom
>     Standard&Patent) <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]]
>     *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]>> 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>. -->
> 
> 
>         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>>.
> 
>     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>>
>         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]> 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/>).
> 
>         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/>).
> 
>         *  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>>.
> 
>         *  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-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/>
> 
>               *  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/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.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>
> 
>         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-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>
> 
>         Diff of the XML:
>         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>
> 
>         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>
> 
> 
>         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>
> 
>         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
>