Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9506 <draft-ietf-ippm-explicit-flow-measurements-07> for your review

[[e-mail]]

Authors,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.

1) <!-- [rfced] Should the short title, which is displayed in the PDF, be updated to
better match the full title?

Current:
   Delay and Loss Bits

Perhaps:
   Host-to-Network Flow Measurements
-->


2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title)
for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->


3) <!-- [rfced] Section 2.2.5. We're having difficulty parsing the following
lead-in phrase:

Original:
   A unidirectional observer or in case of asymmetric routing, upon
   detecting a delay sample:

Perhaps (Making the lead-in phrase conditional):
   If the observer is unidirectional or in the case of asymmetric 
   routing, then upon detecting a delay sample:
-->


4) <!-- [rfced] Section 3. Is there a word missing in the following sentence?
Should it say "(or each sub-flow..."?

Original:
   Each endpoint maintains appropriate counters independently and
   separately for each separately identifiable flow (each sub-flow for
   multipath connections).
-->


5) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.1. Do the following updates improve the clarity of the
round-trip reflection exchange?

Original:

   The overall exchange comprises:

      *  the client selects and consequently sets the T bit to 1 in order
         to identify a first train of packets;

      *  the server, upon receiving each packet included in the first
         train, reflects to the client a respective second train of packets
         of the same size as the first train received, by setting the T bit
         to 1;

      *  the client, upon receiving each packet included in the second
         train, reflects to the server a respective third train of packets
         of the same size as the second train received, by setting the T
         bit to 1;

      *  the server, upon receiving each packet included in the third
         train, finally reflects to the client a respective fourth train of
         packets of the same size as the third train received, by setting
         the T bit to 1.

Perhaps (adding text to the lead-in sentence and changing the order of the
sub-steps in list items 2-4):

   The overall exchange comprises the following steps:
  
      *  the client selects and consequently sets the T bit to 1 in order
         to identify a first train of packets;

      *  upon receiving each packet included in the first train, the server 
         sets the T bit to 1 and reflects to the client a respective second 
         train of packets of the same size as the first train received;

      *  upon receiving each packet included in the second train, the client
         sets the T bit to 1 and reflects to the server a respective third 
         train of packets of the same size as the second train received;

      *  upon receiving each packet included in the third train, the server
         sets the T bit to 1 and finally reflects to the client a respective 
         fourth train of packets of the same size as the third train received.
-->


6) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.1.2. In the following sentence, what correlations is the
observer trying to maintain? 

Original:
   The connection between T Bit and Spin bit helps the correlations on the
   observer.

Possibly:
   The connection between the T bit and Spin bit helps the observer correlate 
   packet trains. 
-->


7) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.1.2. In the following sentence, are "just" 1/4 of the
packets monitored or are "approximately" 1/4 of the packets monitored? Also
the numbers in this section are formatted with <tt> (e.g., <tt>~1/4</tt>).
Should they be?

Original:
   Choosing a generation phase of 1-RTT, we would produce measurements
   every 4-RTT, monitoring just ~1/4 of packets in the slower direction.
-->


8) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.2. In the following sentence, it is not clear what is
allowed to mark the blocks. Please let us know how we can clarify the statement.

Original:
   This method is based on the Alternate-Marking method
   [AltMark] and the Q bit represents the "packet color" that allows to
   mark consecutive blocks of packets with different colors. 
-->


9) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.2. Does the following update improve the readability of the sentence?

Original:
   The method based on fixed timer
   can measure packet loss on a network segment by cooperating and
   synchronized observers on both ends of the segment comparing packets
   counters for the same packet blocks. 

Perhaps (saying at the beginning who can use the fixed-timer method):
   Cooperating and synchronized observers on either end of a network 
   segment can use the fixed-timer method to measure packet loss on the
   segment by comparing packet counters for the same packet blocks. 
-->


10) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.3. We could not find an Echo Loss bit in RFC 7713 [ConEx],
nor could we find a field that reported an approximate number of lost bytes. Please
let us know how we may update this sentence.  

Original:
   This loss signaling is similar to loss signaling in [ConEx], except
   the Loss Event bit is reporting the exact number of lost packets,
   whereas Echo Loss bit in [ConEx] is reporting an approximate number
   of lost bytes.
-->


11) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.3.2.1. In the sentence below, should the observer measure
the upstream loss rate for one RTT before starting to measure the end-to-end loss?
Please help us clarify this sentence:

Original:
   Whenever the observer needs to perform a computation that uses both
   upstream and end-to-end loss rate measurements, it should use
   upstream loss rate leading the end-to-end loss rate by approximately
   1 RTT. 
-->


12) <!-- [rfced] Section 4. In Table 2, are the arrows (e.g., "-> see Q") necessary?
In the bottom-right cell, may we expand "pk" to "pkts"?

Current:
   + - - - - - -+- - +- - - - - - +- - - - - - -+ - -+ - - - - -+- - - +
   | QL: sQuare | 2  |  Upstream  |      x2     | #  |-> see Q  |see Q |
   | + Loss Ev. |    +- - - - - - +- - - - - - -+ - -+ - - - - -+- - - +
   | Bits       |    | Downstream |      x2     | #  |-> see    |see L |
   |            |    |            |             |    |Q|L       |      |
   |            |    +- - - - - - +- - - - - - -+ - -+ - - - - -+- - - +
   |            |    |    E2E     |      x2     | #  |-> see L  |see L |
   + - - - - - -+- - +- - - - - - +- - - - - - -+ - -+ - - - - -+- - - +
   | QR: sQuare | 2  |  Upstream  |      x2     | *  |Rate over |see Q |
   | + Ref. Sq. |    +- - - - - - +- - - - - - -+ - -+N*ppa     + - - -+
   | Bits       |    |   3/4 RT   |      x2     | *  |pkts (see |N*ppa |
   |            |    +- - - - - - +- - - - - - -+ - -+Q bit for |pk    |
   |            |    |    !E2E    |     E2E,    | *  |N)        |(see Q|
   |            |    |            | Downstream, |    |          |bit   |
   |            |    |            |   Half RT   |    |          |for N)|
   + - - - - - -+- - +- - - - - - +- - - - - - -+ - -+ - - - - -+- - - +
-->


13) <!-- [rfced] Section 7. Does the following update improve the readability of the sentence?

Original:
   The measurements described in this document do not imply new packets
   injected into the network causing potential harm to the network
   itself and to data traffic.  

Perhaps (clarifying that packets are not implied to cause harm):
   The measurements described in this document do not imply that new packets
   injected into the network can cause potential harm to the network
   itself and to data traffic.  
-->


14) <!-- [rfced] Terminology

a) We have expanded the following abbreviations. Please review each expansion
in the document carefully to ensure correctness.

   CE - Congestion Experienced (from RFC 9000)
   CPE - Customer Premises Equipment
   E2E - end to end
   PE - Provider Edge
   RTO - retransmission timeout
   SCTP - Stream Control Transmission Protocol

c) Please help us make these terms consistent. The number of instances are given in parentheses:

   1-RTT (1) vs 1 RTT (4)
   2-RTT (1) vs 2 RTT (2)
   4-RTT (1) vs 4 RTT (0)
   6-RTT (1) vs 6 RTT (2)

   Generation Phase (4, (2 in titles)) vs Generation phase (2) vs generation phase (4)
   Pause Phase (2) vs Pause phase (1) vs pause phase (1)
   Reflection Phase (4, (2 in titles)) vs Reflection phase (2) vs reflection phase (1)

   Loss Event bit (7)  vs Loss event bit (1, definition)
   Reflection square signal bit (1, definition) vs Reflection square bit (3)
   sQuare bit (4) vs sQuare signal bit (1, definition)
  
   Reflection Block (1, definition) vs reflection block (2) vs R Block (11)
 
   spin-bit period (4) vs Spin bit period (2) vs spin period (5, definition)
-->


15) <!-- [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. In addition, please consider whether "tradition" should be
updated for clarity.  While the NIST website <https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/
nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructions#table1> indicates that this
term is potentially biased, it is also ambiguous.  "Tradition" is a subjective term,
as it is not the same for everyone. 
-->


Thank you.

RFC Editor/jm/ap


On Oct 26, 2023, at 2:06 PM, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2023/10/26

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/rfc9506.xml
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9506.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9506.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9506.txt

Diff file of the text:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9506-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9506-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9506-xmldiff1.html


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9506

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9506 (draft-ietf-ippm-explicit-flow-measurements-07)

Title            : Explicit Host-to-Network Flow Measurements Techniques
Author(s)        : M. Cociglio, A. Ferrieux, G. Fioccola, I. Lubashev, F. Bulgarella, M. Nilo, I. Hamchaoui, R. Sisto
WG Chair(s)      : Marcus Ihlar, Tommy Pauly
Area Director(s) : Martin Duke, Zaheduzzaman Sarker