Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9551 <draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework-11> for your review
Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Tue, 05 March 2024 01:10 UTC
Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7B91C1CAF49; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 17:10:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.104
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.104 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rtv7lrU1DroT; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 17:10:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb31.google.com (mail-yb1-xb31.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b31]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08EDAC1CAF38; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 17:10:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb31.google.com with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-db4364ecd6aso5385962276.2; Mon, 04 Mar 2024 17:10:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1709601027; x=1710205827; darn=rfc-editor.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=PsKI1CZ1BWtO6CxcVkXK0eeDsTzrxXoXzU1YefqRcsM=; b=QW12Whqw1u8u92Ff8ANTPXXp+cNF0swnsc7mcvKWSfxcJT2d7w13V68RAWF9z4tHDj kxvCyetwMdqms8gkyth/fk2F5By5PwXSI4/S5UlbHTY9JXqR1zXIE9SMTAWYRRweWHLG h05OsYMoxGclR8ccElpfjwW4cvtRN6s450zCchS7u4lJcV328zpAr+8IHnSUCZkNYywz 0oBmm1el067AbZcyOQFyhA42DBxdH9hIfhb1a8j/9ytmwZILhMjL4pfcK1W/4IOhayd5 RwjDYmnrTxor5xg4/G12hYgi2vImUYfCOKjM+4bYgpak1g0k+R8t51wsgnRVnudrofKS St+Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1709601027; x=1710205827; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=PsKI1CZ1BWtO6CxcVkXK0eeDsTzrxXoXzU1YefqRcsM=; b=wGZPDlCR0ogO22vSPGatxipkkPI8q3bhxzFJ4hlOnBKzimUirjyLsqZRKTWTPStn9d NWqAo8eWuwrEPpNj/bQyPNHqTiYThBg7AlDYScrVeJs75TI+BsUx6saD34FSAHkiMt5f 77fnOzd6I9xkEfUcTmRUOoWilm2iJCqPPoKTn4awVuZGnlj71ikYPscYTN/UDoG074EV e1pRo+2wuNplJsn2NRdveyzBpUOe1u6IEX5p3Mu/8hWGoPN0nA6MLfTGOz2LoohOC6hx /hz+jnkQMjpWG1NMGLyCnXg0CSi4Jq9l7KNEpbdrACuVDHzpH2JQf0qMMqce5TCn/MUk Issg==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXFsiL1VnIElHuHmHOe1ACfshEu5iDWB1qyQoFlxjmG5vXWyjZMyM3FJ3t03GM5umtpWBPS8iorNj93TxuY0af2Nr/BmBuj0s9XsJWJ+sUmB2rH3E5OyonwVf2TGz83YWMdn510qHw1
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwON/hRopYiKX8Py2duzVM3lFEww2sAR1aXwbohr92ZYWimRdNz 1cG+j4D/jv+gs2zv7fNoqvUPkGoYyOS4ecL/HxKqMJRJPpuV+2FJN4/I8ATBzIfFn5yyVNHveDo yOQ+WTe4lIQwq7495l2kLpK+TyMg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH/RY2vFvFTVa27JKEcQc/8sgU0MgTBkwtKGSm+MBTmwZ4cZKq0WXIhx5MK/uVUAMraTjpxdKIDJpICK3PW40E=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:2107:0:b0:dcc:ca51:c2e1 with SMTP id h7-20020a252107000000b00dccca51c2e1mr7405921ybh.2.1709601026592; Mon, 04 Mar 2024 17:10:26 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240301190847.151841FEDA78@rfcpa.amsl.com> <A1A80E9C-A94E-4353-9570-4D6AA5836AC0@imt-atlantique.fr> <CALypLp99-303fK71qMBqUQrJ0hAe3Xsdv0xOTW98mF5p9qPMNg@mail.gmail.com> <ED0D5D4F-7E19-4AAE-84F1-75D3B4553B73@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <ED0D5D4F-7E19-4AAE-84F1-75D3B4553B73@amsl.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2024 17:10:16 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmXyU4oV0Kmfbjz=ZZEs_Ggpu+kmJE7N-3j74t6YQXCjVg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Megan Ferguson <mferguson@amsl.com>
Cc: CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>, "Georgios Z. Papadopoulos" <georgios.papadopoulos@imt-atlantique.fr>, Fabrice Theoleyre <fabrice.theoleyre@cnrs.fr>, "Balázs A. Varga" <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, janos.farkas@ericsson.com, detnet-ads@ietf.org, DetNet Chairs <detnet-chairs@ietf.org>, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e5da5b0612df819b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/m3Yp6wdNz4dyL62g1z3XTfzOwDs>
Subject: Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9551 <draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework-11> for your review
X-BeenThere: auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Archiving AUTH48 exchanges between the RFC Production Center, the authors, and other related parties" <auth48archive.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/>
List-Post: <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2024 01:10:31 -0000
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 <mferguson@amsl.com> 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 <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> > 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 < > georgios.papadopoulos@imt-atlantique.fr> wrote: > > Dear RFC editor, > > > > Thank you for your work and comments. > > > > > On 1 Mar 2024, at 20:08, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org 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 > > > > > > * rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org (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). > > > > > > * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, 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, > > > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org 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 > > > > > > > > > >
- [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9551 <draft-ietf-detne… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9551 <draft-ietf-d… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9551 <draft-ietf-d… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9551 <draft-ietf-d… Fabrice Theoleyre
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9551 <draft-ietf-d… Georgios Z. Papadopoulos
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9551 <draft-ietf-d… CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9551 <draft-ietf-d… Megan Ferguson
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9551 <draft-ietf-d… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9551 <draft-ietf-d… Fabrice Theoleyre
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9551 <draft-ietf-d… Megan Ferguson
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9551 <draft-ietf-d… Megan Ferguson
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9551 <draft-ietf-d… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9551 <draft-ietf-d… Balázs Varga A
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9551 <draft-ietf-d… CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9551 <draft-ietf-d… Georgios Z. Papadopoulos
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9551 <draft-ietf-d… Janos Farkas
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9551 <draft-ietf-d… Megan Ferguson