Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9544 <draft-ietf-ippm-pam-09> for your review

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Rebecca,
thank you for your thoughtful handling of our comments and carefully
applying them to the document. I read the AUTH48 version, and I agree with
all the updates.

Best regards,
Greg

On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 1:56 PM Rebecca VanRheenen <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi authors,
>
> Thanks for the quick responses! We have updated the document. All
> questions have been resolved.
>
> Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not
> make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any
> further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form.
> We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the
> publication process.
>
> Updated XML file:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9544.xml
>
> Updated output files:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9544.txt
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9544.pdf
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9544.html
>
> Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9544-auth48diff.html
>
> Diff files showing all changes:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9544-diff.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9544-rfcdiff.html (side-by-side
> diff)
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9544-alt-diff.html (diff showing
> changes where text is moved or deleted)
>
> Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the
> most recent version.
>
> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9544
>
> Thank you,
>
> RFC Editor/rv
>
>
>
> > On Feb 20, 2024, at 4:18 PM, Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi John,
> > thank you for your prompt response. I like "identified in" and support
> your proposal.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 4:13 PM John Strassner <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > Hi Greg, et al.,
> >
> > Greg wrote:
> > John:
> > > #7: I think that "between the elements of the network that are
> referred to for
> > >       the SLO corresponding to the performance parameter" is incorrect.
> > >       The SLO defines both the metric and where the metric is measured.
> > >       The SLO does not "refer" to anything.
> > >       Hence, I would instead say: "between the elements of the network
> that
> > >       are defined by the SLO corresponding to the performance
> parameter."
> > GIM2>> I agree with "referred to by" suggested by Joel. I think that
> "defined by" suggested by John is closer to "identified in" as a
> performance metric is firstly defined and then can be used in the SLO.
> Similarly, in my opinion, network elements are identified in the SLO. Thus,
> I think that "referred to by" most accurately characterizes the
> relationship.
> >
> > <jcs>
> > The SLO does define the metric. If you are more comfortable with
> identified in, that is fine.
> > I think that "referred to by" is awkward. So how about "between the
> elements of the network that are identified in the SLO corresponding to the
> performance parameter."?
> >
> > best regards,
> > John
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 3:11 PM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > Hi Rebecca,
> > thank you for careful consolidation of our proposals. Please find my
> responses to the outstanding questions below tagged GIM2>>.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Greg
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 2:24 PM Rebecca VanRheenen <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > Hi authors,
> >
> > Thank you all for your replies! We have updated the document accordingly
> (see list of updated files below) and have a few followup questions:
> >
> >
> > 1) There were several suggestions in response to this question (listed
> below). Please discuss and let us know how to update.
> >
> > >> 7) <!-- [rfced] Please confirm that "referred to for" is correct. Or
> should this
> > >> be updated to "referred to", "referred for", or something else?
> > >>
> > >> Original:
> > >>    The monitoring of performance parameters to determine the quality
> of
> > >>    an interval is performed between the elements of the network that
> are
> > >>    referred to for the SLO corresponding to the performance parameter.
> >
> > Greg:
> > > I think that it should be "referred to".
> >
> > Joel:
> > > If I am reading item 7 correctly, I think that is “referred to by”.  I
> can live with many forms, but I think “between the elements of the network
> that are referred to the SLO” will cause many people reading difficulty.
> >
> > John:
> > > #7: I think that "between the elements of the network that are
> referred to for
> > >       the SLO corresponding to the performance parameter" is incorrect.
> > >       The SLO defines both the metric and where the metric is measured.
> > >       The SLO does not "refer" to anything.
> > >       Hence, I would instead say: "between the elements of the network
> that
> > >       are defined by the SLO corresponding to the performance
> parameter."
> > GIM2>> I agree with "referred to by" suggested by Joel. I think that
> "defined by" suggested by John is closer to "identified in" as a
> performance metric is firstly defined and then can be used in the SLO.
> Similarly, in my opinion, network elements are identified in the SLO. Thus,
> I think that "referred to by" most accurately characterizes the
> relationship.
> >
> >
> > 2)
> >
> > >> 11) <!-- [rfced] May we change the first bulleted list in Sections
> 3.1 and all
> > >> the bulleted lists in Section 3.2 to definition lists? See
> > >> https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#dl.
> > >>
> > >> One example:
> > >>
> > >> Current:
> > >>    *  VI is a time interval during which at least one of the
> performance
> > >>       parameters degraded below its configurable optimal level
> > >>       threshold.
> > >>
> > >>    *  SVI is a time interval during which at least one of the
> > >>       performance parameters degraded below its configurable critical
> > >>       threshold.
> > >>
> > >>    *  Consequently, VFI is a time interval during which all
> performance
> > >>       parameters are at or better than their respective pre-defined
> > >>       optimal levels.
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps:
> > >>    VI: A time interval during which at least one of the performance
> > >>       parameters degraded below its configurable optimal level
> > >>       threshold.
> > >>
> > >>    SVI: A time interval during which at least one of the
> > >>       performance parameters degraded below its configurable critical
> > >>       threshold.
> > >>
> > >>    VFI: A time interval during which all performance
> > >>       parameters are at or better than their respective pre-defined
> > >>       optimal levels.
> > >
> > > GIM>> I slightly prefer the current format, but I can live with the
> update.
> > > —>
> >
> > We did not make any changes here, per your preference.
> > GIM2>> Thank you
> >
> >
> > 3)
> >
> > >> a) We see both of the following as the expansion for PAM.
> > >>
> > >>   Precision Availability Metric (1 instance)
> > >>   Precision Availability Metrics (8 instances)
> > >>
> > >> We updated to use the latter form (i.e., the form with "Metrics").
> Please let
> > >> us know any objections.
> > > GIM>> Thank you for the question. I think that the use of singular,
> i.e., "Metric", in Acronyms is valid. Consequently, all acronyms in the
> document, in my opinion, should be changed to "PAMs".
> >
> > We updated PAM to PAMs in all instances except the following (when used
> as an adjective). In a few instances, we also updated verbs from singular
> to plural when “PAMs" is used as a subject, so please review those for
> correctness.
> >
> > Current (“PAM” as adjective):
> >    3.3.  PAM Configuration Settings and Service Availability
> >
> >    5.  Other Expected PAM Benefits
> >
> >    … per some predefined PAM settings.
> >
> >    … of PAM-related settings.
> >
> > GIM2>> Thank you for your thoughtful handling of the use of this acronym
> in the document.
> >
> >
> > 4)
> >
> > >> d) FYI - We have added an expansion for the following abbreviation
> > >> per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each
> > >> expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness.
> > >>
> > >>   IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
> >
> > Greg:
> > > It seems that IPFIX is used only one time in the document. Do you
> think that the expanded form without the acronym is sufficient? I'm okay
> with any form.
> >
> > John:
> > > #17d: I would rather spell out IPFIX (since it is only used once) but
> am also ok with adding it to the list of abbreviations.
> >
> > We chose to add this to the list of abbreviations as suggested by John.
> Omitting the acronym might make the sentence a bit harder to read because
> of the two instances of “Information”. Please let us know any concerns.
> >
> > Text without acronym:
> >    *  A set of IP Flow Information Export Information Elements
> >       will allow PAM ...
> > GIM2>> I agree with John's proposal to add IPFIX to the list of acronyms
> and use the abbreviated form in the body of the document.
> >
> >
> > 5) Would you like to alphabetize the acronyms in Section 2.2, or do you
> prefer the current order? The current ordering seems to be intentional
> (similar terms grouped together), but we want to check after adding IPFIX
> to the end of the list.
> > GIM2>> I find the alphabetical order to be more reader-friendly.
> > _______________
> >
> > Updated XML file:
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9544.xml
> >
> > Updated output files:
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9544.txt
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9544.pdf
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9544.html
> >
> > Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48:
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9544-auth48diff.html
> >
> > Diff files showing all changes:
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9544-diff.html
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9544-rfcdiff.html
> (side-by-side diff)
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9544-alt-diff.html(diff
> showing changes where text is moved or deleted)
> >
> > Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view
> the most recent version.
> >
> > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9544
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > RFC Editor/rv
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Feb 19, 2024, at 9:44 PM, John Strassner <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > MY comments are as follows:
> > > YES with no additional comments to what Greg made: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8,
> 9, 10, 11,12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 (a and b and c), 18, 19
> > >
> > > #3: YES, but I do not like changing "or" to "nor"
> > >
> > > #17d: I would rather spell out IPFIX (since it is only used once) but
> am also ok with adding it to the list of abbreviations.
> > >
> > > #7: I think that "between the elements of the network that are
> referred to for
> > >       the SLO corresponding to the performance parameter" is incorrect.
> > >       The SLO defines both the metric and where the metric is measured.
> > >       The SLO does not "refer" to anything.
> > >       Hence, I would instead say: "between the elements of the network
> that
> > >       are defined by the SLO corresponding to the performance
> parameter."
> > >
> > > On Feb 15, 2024, at 5:34 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > *****IMPORTANT*****
> > >
> > > Updated 2024/02/15
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > best regards,
> > > John
> > >
> > > On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 8:04 PM Joel Halpern <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > > I can live with all the changes as proposed.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If I am reading item 7 correctly, I think that is “referred to by”.  I
> can live with many forms, but I think “between the elements of the network
> that are referred to the SLO” will cause many people reading difficulty.
> > >
> > > Yours,
> > > Joel
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
> > > Sent: Friday, February 16, 2024 8:45 PM
> > > To: [e-mail]
> > > Cc: Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9544 <draft-ietf-ippm-pam-09> for your
> review
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear RFC Editor,
> > >
> > > thank you for your thoughtful proposals helping in improving the
> document. Please find my responses and notes below tagged GIM>>.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Greg
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 5:39 PM <[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] FYI - We updated the abbreviated title (appears in the
> center of
> > > the running header in the pdf output) to more closely align with the
> > > document title. Please let us know any objections.
> > >
> > > Original:
> > >    Framework of PAM
> > >
> > > Current:
> > >    PAM for Services Governed by SLOs
> > >
> > > GIM>> I agree with the update with a minor modification
> > >
> > > PAMs for Service Governed by SLOs
> > >
> > > I've looked at the title itself and wanted to ask you and the
> co-authors a question. The title introduces the SLO acronym, should the PAM
> acronym also be introduced in the title as
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  Precision Availability Metrics (PAMs) for Services Governed by
> Service Level Objectives (SLOs)
> > >
> > > -->
> > >
> > >
> > > 2) <!-- [rfced] How may we update the text after the comma to improve
> clarity?
> > >
> > > Original:
> > >    Hence it is not sufficient to measure service levels
> > >    per se over time, but to assess the quality of the service being
> > >    contextually provided (e.g., with the applicable SLO in mind).
> > >
> > > Perhaps:
> > >    Hence, it is not sufficient to measure service levels
> > >    per se over time; the quality of the service being
> > >    contextually provided (e.g., with the applicable SLO in mind) must
> be also assessed.
> > >
> > > GIM>> I agree with the proposed update. It makes the text more
> readable.
> > >
> > > -->
> > >
> > >
> > > 3) <!-- [rfced] May we update the text starting with ", and whether
> their
> > > SLOs..." as follows for to create parallel structure?
> > >
> > > Original:
> > >    However, at this point, there are no standard metrics that can be
> > >    used to account for the quality with which services are delivered
> > >    relative to their SLOs, and whether their SLOs are being met at all
> > >    times.
> > >
> > > Perhaps:
> > >    However, at this point, there are no standard metrics that can be
> > >    used to account for the quality with which services are delivered
> > >    relative to their SLOs or to determine whether their SLOs are being
> met at all
> > >    times.
> > >
> > > GIM>> I agree with the proposed update that improves the text. I
> wonder if s/or/nor/ is acceptable in this sentence?
> > >
> > >
> > > -->
> > >
> > >
> > > 4) <!-- [rfced] We see the term "Flow Record" in RFC 7011 but not in
> RFC 7012
> > > (though "flow" does appear). Please review the citations and let us
> know
> > > if any updates are needed.
> > >
> > > Original:
> > >    Flow records [RFC7011] and
> > >    [RFC7012] maintain statistics about flows, including flow volume and
> > >    flow duration, but again, contain very little information about
> > >    service levels, let alone whether the service levels delivered meet
> > >    their respective targets, i.e., their associated SLOs.
> > >
> > > GIM>> Thank you for your thoughtful question. I think that reference
> to RFC 7012 is justified as it refers, as you've noted, to 'Flow' and 'Flow
> information'.
> > >
> > > -->
> > >
> > >
> > > 5) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We updated the title of Section 2 from
> "Conventions and
> > > Terminology" to "Conventions" because "Terminology" is one of the
> > > subsections. Please review and let us know any concerns.
> > >
> > > Original:
> > >    2.  Conventions and Terminology
> > >      2.1. Terminology
> > >      2.2. Acronyms
> > >
> > > Current:
> > >    2.  Conventions
> > >      2.1. Terminology
> > >      2.2. Acronyms
> > >
> > > GIM>> I agree with the update
> > >
> > > -->
> > >
> > >
> > > 6) <!-- [rfced] Is "configurable optimal level threshold" correct
> here? Should
> > > this read "configurable optimal threshold" (i.e., no "level") or
> "configurable
> > > optimal level (i.e., no "threshold")?
> > >
> > > Original:
> > >    *  VI is a time interval during which at least one of the
> performance
> > >       parameters degraded below its configurable optimal level
> > >       threshold.
> > >
> > > Perhaps:
> > >    *  VI is a time interval during which at least one of the
> performance
> > >       parameters degraded below its configurable optimal
> > >       threshold.
> > >
> > > GIM>> Thank you for pointing out that "threshold" and "level" are
> synonyms. I slightly prefer the first option (above), but I can live with
> the other proposal (below)
> > >
> > >
> > > Or:
> > >    *  VI is a time interval during which at least one of the
> performance
> > >       parameters degraded below its configurable optimal
> > >       level.
> > > -->
> > >
> > >
> > > 7) <!-- [rfced] Please confirm that "referred to for" is correct. Or
> should this
> > > be updated to "referred to", "referred for", or something else?
> > >
> > > Original:
> > >    The monitoring of performance parameters to determine the quality of
> > >    an interval is performed between the elements of the network that
> are
> > >    referred to for the SLO corresponding to the performance parameter.
> > >
> > > GIM>> I think that it should be "referred to".
> > >
> > > -->
> > >
> > >
> > > 8) <!-- [rfced] How may we update "this allows distinguishing" here?
> > >
> > > Original:
> > >    For example, this allows distinguishing between cases in
> > >    which violated intervals are caused by isolated violation
> occurrences
> > >    (such as, a sporadic issue that may be caused by a temporary spike
> in
> > >    a queue depth along the packet's path) or by broad violations across
> > >    multiple packets (such as a problem with slow route convergence
> > >    across the network or more foundational issues such as insufficient
> > >    network resources).
> > >
> > > Perhaps ("this allows a service provider to distinguish"):
> > >    For example, this allows a service provider to distinguish between
> cases in
> > >    which violated intervals are caused by isolated violation
> occurrences
> > >    (such as a sporadic issue that may be caused by a temporary spike in
> > >    a queue depth along the packet's path) or by broad violations across
> > >    multiple packets (such as a problem with slow route convergence
> > >    across the network or more foundational issues such as insufficient
> > >    network resources).
> > >
> > > Or ("this allows for distinguishing"):
> > >    For example, this allows for distinguishing between cases in
> > >    which violated intervals are caused by isolated violation
> occurrences
> > >    (such as a sporadic issue that may be caused by a temporary spike in
> > >    a queue depth along the packet's path) or by broad violations across
> > >    multiple packets (such as a problem with slow route convergence
> > >    across the network or more foundational issues such as insufficient
> > >    network resources).
> > >
> > > GIM>> I slightly prefer the latter option as the act of attributing
> degradation to a cause could be performed by a function, not an operator.
> But I can live with the former option.
> > >
> > >
> > > -->
> > >
> > >
> > > 9) <!-- [rfced] This sentence appears in Section 3.2 and points to
> Section
> > > 3. Should "introduced in Section 3" either be removed or updated to
> "introduced
> > > in this document"? Also, is this sentence introducing the bulleted list
> > > that appear after the paragraph? If so, would adding "The following" be
> > > helpful?
> > >
> > > Original:
> > >    A set of metrics can be created based on PAM introduced in Section
> 3.
> > >
> > > Perhaps (omit section pointer):
> > >    The following set of metrics can be created based on PAM.
> > >
> > > Or (use "in this document" instead of section pointer):
> > >    The following set of metrics can be created based on PAM as
> introduced
> > >    in this document.
> > >
> > > GIM>> I slightly prefer the latter option, but I can live with the
> first one.
> > >
> > > -->
> > >
> > >
> > > 10) <!-- [rfced] We updated the first two bulleted lists in Section
> 3.2 (created
> > > parallel structure and removed the parentheses around sentences).
> Please
> > > review these changes in the diff file and let us know any concerns.
> > >
> > > GIM>> I agree with the update that makes looks of lists in the
> document consistent.
> > >
> > > -->
> > >
> > >
> > > 11) <!-- [rfced] May we change the first bulleted list in Sections 3.1
> and all
> > > the bulleted lists in Section 3.2 to definition lists? See
> > > https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#dl.
> > >
> > > One example:
> > >
> > > Current:
> > >    *  VI is a time interval during which at least one of the
> performance
> > >       parameters degraded below its configurable optimal level
> > >       threshold.
> > >
> > >    *  SVI is a time interval during which at least one of the
> > >       performance parameters degraded below its configurable critical
> > >       threshold.
> > >
> > >    *  Consequently, VFI is a time interval during which all performance
> > >       parameters are at or better than their respective pre-defined
> > >       optimal levels.
> > >
> > > Perhaps:
> > >    VI: A time interval during which at least one of the performance
> > >       parameters degraded below its configurable optimal level
> > >       threshold.
> > >
> > >    SVI: A time interval during which at least one of the
> > >       performance parameters degraded below its configurable critical
> > >       threshold.
> > >
> > >    VFI: A time interval during which all performance
> > >       parameters are at or better than their respective pre-defined
> > >       optimal levels.
> > >
> > > GIM>> I slightly prefer the current format, but I can live with the
> update.
> > >
> > > -->
> > >
> > >
> > > 12) <!-- [rfced] Should "the following section" here read "this
> section"? This
> > > sentence appears in Section 3.3; the following section is Section 4,
> > > which does not mention a state model.
> > >
> > > Original:
> > >    While the definition of a service state model is outside the scope
> of
> > >    this document, the following section provides some considerations
> for
> > >    how such a state model and accompanying configuration settings could
> > >    be defined.
> > >
> > > Perhaps:
> > >    While the definition of a service state model is outside the scope
> of
> > >    this document, this section provides some considerations for
> > >    how such a state model and accompanying configuration settings could
> > >    be defined.
> > >
> > > GIM>> Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the text. I agree
> with the proposed update.
> > >
> > > -->
> > >
> > >
> > > 13) <!-- [rfced] Would it be helpful to update "YANG/NETCONF/RESTCONF
> framework"
> > > as follows? Or do you prefer the current?
> > >
> > > Original:
> > >    *  A YANG data model will allow PAM to be incorporated into
> > >       monitoring applications based on the YANG/NETCONF/RESTCONF
> > >       framework.
> > >
> > > Perhaps:
> > >    *  A YANG data model will allow PAM to be incorporated into
> > >       monitoring applications based on the YANG, NETCONF,
> > >       and RESTCONF frameworks.
> > >
> > > GIM>> I agree with the proposed update.
> > >
> > >
> > > -->
> > >
> > >
> > > 14) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We rephrased this as follows to form a complete
> > > sentence. The other items in the list are complete sentences. Please
> > > review.
> > >
> > > Original:
> > >    *  The definition of the metrics that represent histograms for
> > >       service level parameters with buckets corresponding to individual
> > >       service level objectives,
> > >
> > > Updated:
> > >    *  Metrics can be defined to represent histograms for
> > >       service-level parameters with buckets corresponding to individual
> > >       SLOs..
> > >
> > > GIM>> I agree with the proposed update.
> > >
> > > -->
> > >
> > >
> > > 15) <!-- [rfced] Please review "that should be maintained". Should
> this read "and
> > > should be maintained", or is the current okay? Also, please confirm
> that
> > > "violated time units" is correct here. We do not see this mentioned
> > > elsewhere in the document.
> > >
> > > Original:
> > >    The same service levels that
> > >    constitute SLO violations for one flow that should be maintained as
> > >    part of the "violated time units" and related metrics, may be
> > >    compliant for another flow.
> > >
> > > Perhaps:
> > >    The same service levels that
> > >    constitute SLO violations for one flow and should be maintained as
> > >    part of the "violated time units" and related metrics may be
> > >    compliant for another flow.
> > >
> > > GIM>> I agree with the updated version.
> > >
> > >
> > > -->
> > >
> > >
> > > 16) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We updated this fragment as follows to create a
> complete
> > > sentence.
> > >
> > > Original:
> > >    By the same token, where the definition of what constitutes a
> > >    "severe" or a "significant" violation depends on configuration
> > >    settings or context.
> > >
> > > Perhaps:
> > >    By the same token, the definition of what constitutes a
> > >    "severe" or a "significant" violation depends on configuration
> > >    settings or context.
> > >
> > > GIM>> I agree with the proposed update.
> > >
> > >
> > > -->
> > >
> > >
> > > 17) <!-- [rfced] Abbreviations
> > >
> > > a) We see both of the following as the expansion for PAM.
> > >
> > >   Precision Availability Metric (1 instance)
> > >   Precision Availability Metrics (8 instances)
> > >
> > > We updated to use the latter form (i.e., the form with "Metrics").
> Please let
> > > us know any objections.
> > >
> > > GIM>> Thank you for the question. I think that the use of singular,
> i.e., "Metric", in Acronyms is valid. Consequently, all acronyms in the
> document, in my opinion, should be changed to "PAMs".
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > b) We see two instances of "PAMs" in the document (see below). Since
> "Metrics"
> > > in the expansion is already plural, is the "s" needed in "PAMs"? Please
> > > review.
> > >
> > > Original:
> > >    To indicate a historic degree of precision availability, additional
> > >    derived PAMs can be defined as follows:
> > >    ...
> > >    It might be useful for a service provider to determine the current
> > >    condition of the service for which PAMs are maintained.
> > >
> > > GIM>> If we agree that the acronym is expanded as "Precision
> Availability Metric", then "PAMs" is the right form.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > c) OAM appears in the list of acronyms in Section 2.2 but is not
> mentioned
> > > elsewhere in the document. May we delete this term from the list?
> > >
> > > GIM>> Yes, please remove it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > d) FYI - We have added an expansion for the following abbreviation
> > > per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each
> > > expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness.
> > >
> > >   IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
> > >
> > > GIM>> It seems that IPFIX is used only one time in the document. Do
> you think that the expanded form without the acronym is sufficient? I'm
> okay with any form.
> > >
> > > -->
> > >
> > >
> > > 18) <!-- [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.
> > >
> > > GIM>> I agree, don't find anything that requires rewording.
> > >
> > > -->
> > >
> > >
> > > 19) <!-- [rfced] We see a number of author-inserted comments in the
> .xml file for
> > > this document. We are unsure if these have been resolved. Please review
> > > and let us know if these can be deleted or if they need to be
> addressed.
> > >
> > > GIM>> :-) My apologies for not cleaning our workspace properly. Thank
> you.
> > >
> > > -->
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > RFC Editor/rv
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Feb 15, 2024, at 5:34 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> > >
> > > *****IMPORTANT*****
> > >
> > > Updated 2024/02/15
> > >
> > > 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/rfc9544.xml
> > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9544.html
> > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9544.pdf
> > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9544.txt
> > >
> > > Diff file of the text:
> > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9544-diff.html
> > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9544-rfcdiff.html (side by
> side)
> > >
> > > Alt-diff of the text (allows you to more easily view changes
> > > where text has been deleted or moved):
> > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9544-alt-diff.html
> > >
> > > Diff of the XML:
> > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9544-xmldiff1.html
> > >
> > >
> > > Tracking progress
> > > -----------------
> > >
> > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
> > >   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9544
> > >
> > > Please let us know if you have any questions.
> > >
> > > Thank you for your cooperation,
> > >
> > > RFC Editor
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------
> > > RFC9544 (draft-ietf-ippm-pam-09)
> > >
> > > Title            : Precision Availability Metrics for Services
> Governed by Service Level Objectives (SLOs)
> > > Author(s)        : G. Mirsky, J. Halpern, X. Min, A. Clemm, J.
> Strassner, J. François
> > > WG Chair(s)      : Marcus Ihlar, Tommy Pauly
> > > Area Director(s) : Martin Duke, Zaheduzzaman Sarker
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > regards,
> > > John
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > regards,
> > John
>
>
>