Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9544 <draft-ietf-ippm-pam-09> for your review
rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Fri, 16 February 2024 01:39 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.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 C3B4CC236E7E; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 17:39:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.957
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.957 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CTE_8BIT_MISMATCH=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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
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 Rm1YchCWnicK; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 17:39:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (rfcpa.amsl.com [50.223.129.200]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 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 1466DC1CAF49; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 17:39:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id CFDFA1E58A6; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 17:39:01 -0800 (PST)
To: gregimirsky@gmail.com, joel.halpern@ericsson.com, xiao.min2@zte.com.cn, ludwig@clemm.org, strazpdj@gmail.com, jerome.francois@inria.fr
From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, ippm-ads@ietf.org, ippm-chairs@ietf.org, tpauly@apple.com, martin.h.duke@gmail.com, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20240216013901.CFDFA1E58A6@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 17:39:01 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/mqNCWthBvog1xMbB01jEFM-6Cds>
Subject: Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9544 <draft-ietf-ippm-pam-09> 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: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 01:39:05 -0000
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 --> 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. --> 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. --> 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. --> 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 --> 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. 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. --> 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). --> 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. --> 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. --> 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. --> 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. --> 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. --> 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.. --> 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. --> 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. --> 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. 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. 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? 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) --> 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. --> 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. --> Thank you. RFC Editor/rv On Feb 15, 2024, at 5:34 PM, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org 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 * 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/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
- [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9544 <draft-ietf-ippm-… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9544 <draft-ietf-i… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9544 <draft-ietf-i… Alexander L Clemm
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9544 <draft-ietf-i… John Strassner
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9544 <draft-ietf-i… Alexander L Clemm
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9544 <draft-ietf-i… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9544 <draft-ietf-i… Joel Halpern
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9544 <draft-ietf-i… John Strassner
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9544 <draft-ietf-i… Rebecca VanRheenen
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9544 <draft-ietf-i… Joel Halpern
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9544 <draft-ietf-i… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9544 <draft-ietf-i… John Strassner
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9544 <draft-ietf-i… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9544 <draft-ietf-i… Rebecca VanRheenen
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9544 <draft-ietf-i… xiao.min2
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9544 <draft-ietf-i… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9544 <draft-ietf-i… Joel Halpern
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9544 <draft-ietf-i… Rebecca VanRheenen
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9544 <draft-ietf-i… John Strassner
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9544 <draft-ietf-i… xiao.min2
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9544 <draft-ietf-i… Rebecca VanRheenen
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9544 <draft-ietf-i… Alexander L Clemm
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9544 <draft-ietf-i… Rebecca VanRheenen
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9544 <draft-ietf-i… Alexander L Clemm
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9544 <draft-ietf-i… Rebecca VanRheenen
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9544 <draft-ietf-i… Rebecca VanRheenen
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9544 <draft-ietf-i… Rebecca VanRheenen
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9544 <draft-ietf-i… Martin Duke
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9544 <draft-ietf-i… Alexander L Clemm
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9544 <draft-ietf-i… Rebecca VanRheenen