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

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Dear, Jean et al.,
I was reviewing AUTH48 RFC-to-be 9533 and noticed that there are two forms:
"micro-session" and "micro session". Checked back this document to realize
that both forms are used here as well. I think that it would be helpful to
converge on using one form in both documents. Personally, I slightly prefer
the "micro-session" form, but I can live with the other. WDYT? I'll
duplicate the question on the other discussion thread.

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 8:58 AM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Jean,
> thank you for your thoughtful and careful work integrating all the
> updates. I agree with all changes and approve the current version of the
> document.
> Please let me know if there are any further questions.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 7:19 AM Jean Mahoney <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Zhenqiang, Greg, Tianran,
>>
>> Thank you for your quick responses! We have updated the document based
>> on your feedback:
>>
>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/authors/rfc9534-lastrfcdiff.html
>>
>> Zhenqiang, we have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page:
>>
>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9534
>>
>> The files have been posted here:
>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.txt
>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.pdf
>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.html
>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.xml
>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-diff.html (all changes)
>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-rfcdiff.html (all changes
>> side by side)
>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-auth48diff.html
>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-alt-diff.html
>>
>> We will await further word from you and your coauthors regarding other
>> AUTH48 changes and/or approval.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> RFC Editor/jm
>>
>>
>> On 1/23/24 10:13 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>> > Hello Editor and coauthors,
>> >
>> > I have no objection on Greg's and Tianran's suggestion.
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Best Regards,
>> > Zhenqiang Li
>> > China Mobile
>> > [e-mail]
>> >
>> >     *From:* Tianran Zhou <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> >     *Date:* 2024-01-24 11:08
>> >     *To:* Greg Mirsky <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>> >     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> >     *CC:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>> >     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>; Zhukeyi(Kaiyin,Datacom
>> >     Standard&Patent) <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> >     *Subject:* RE: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9534
>> >     <draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag-06> for your review
>> >
>> >     Hi Editor and Greg,
>> >
>> >     I prefer Greg’s change on this.
>> >
>> >     GIM>> Thank you for the question and proposed update. I agree that
>> >     the first occurence of "tuple" must be singular. The second, as I
>> >     think of how it works, is about modifying some elements of the
>> >     5-tuple. I would propose the following update:
>> >
>> >     OLD TEXT:
>> >
>> >         One STAMP test session over the LAG can measure the performance
>> of a
>> >         member link with fixed five tuples, or it can measure an
>> average of
>> >         some or all member links of the LAG by varying the five tuples.
>> >
>> >     NEW TEXT:
>> >
>> >         A STAMP test session over the LAG can be used to measure the
>> >     performance of a
>> >
>> >         member link using specially-constructed 5-tuple. The session can
>> >     be used to measure an average of
>> >
>> >         some or all member links of the LAG by varying one or more
>> >     elements  of that 5-tuple.
>> >
>> >     Cheers,
>> >
>> >     Tianran
>> >
>> >     *From:*Greg Mirsky [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> >     *Sent:* Wednesday, January 24, 2024 10:53 AM
>> >     *To:* [e-mail]
>> >     *Cc:* [e-mail]; Tianran Zhou
>> >     <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>> >     [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>> >     [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> >     *Subject:* Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9534
>> >     <draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag-06> for your review
>> >
>> >     Dear RFC Editor,
>> >
>> >     thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the document and
>> >     helpful suggestions to improve it. Please find my responses to your
>> >     questions below tagged by GIM>>. Please let me know if there are any
>> >     further questions or actions I should take.
>> >
>> >     Regards,
>> >
>> >     Greg
>> >
>> >     On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 10:44 AM <[e-mail]
>> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> >
>> >         Authors,
>> >
>> >         While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as
>> >         necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML
>> file.
>> >
>> >         1) <!-- [rfced] We have updated the title of the document by
>> >         expanding LAG. Please let us know if any changes are necessary.
>> >
>> >         Original:
>> >           Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol Extensions for
>> >         Performance
>> >                                     Measurement on LAG
>> >
>> >         Current:
>> >           Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol Extensions for
>> >         Performance
>> >                             Measurement on a Link Aggregation Group
>> >
>> >     GIM>> I agree with the proposed text.
>> >
>> >
>> >         -->
>> >
>> >
>> >         2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that
>> >         appear in
>> >         the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search
>> >         <https://www.rfc-editor.org/search>. -->
>> >
>> >
>> >         3) <!-- [rfced] Section 1. We would like to clarify the use of
>> >         "tuple" in the sentence below:
>> >
>> >         Current:
>> >
>> >             One STAMP test session over the LAG can measure the
>> >         performance of a
>> >             member link with fixed five tuples, or it can measure an
>> >         average of
>> >             some or all member links of the LAG by varying the five
>> tuples.
>> >
>> >         Perhaps (updating "five tuple" to "5-tuple", which is more
>> >         commonly used; making the first use of "tuple" singular; and
>> >         changing "varying the five tuples" to "specifying their
>> 5-tuples"):
>> >
>> >             One STAMP test session over the LAG can measure the
>> >         performance of a
>> >             member link using its fixed 5-tuple, or it can measure an
>> >         average of
>> >             some or all member links of the LAG by specifying their
>> >         5-tuples.
>> >
>> >     GIM>> Thank you for the question and proposed update. I agree that
>> >     the first occurence of "tuple" must be singular. The second, as I
>> >     think of how it works, is about modifying some elements of the
>> >     5-tuple. I would propose the following update:
>> >
>> >     OLD TEXT:
>> >
>> >         One STAMP test session over the LAG can measure the performance
>> of a
>> >         member link with fixed five tuples, or it can measure an
>> average of
>> >         some or all member links of the LAG by varying the five tuples.
>> >
>> >     NEW TEXT:
>> >
>> >         A STAMP test session over the LAG can be used to measure the
>> >     performance of a
>> >
>> >         member link using specially-constructed 5-tuple. The session can
>> >     be used to measure an average of
>> >
>> >         some or all member links of the LAG by varying one or more
>> >     elements  of that 5-tuple.
>> >
>> >         -->
>> >
>> >
>> >         4) <!-- [rfced] [IEEE802.1AX] 802.1AX-2008 has been superseded
>> >         by 802.1AX-2014. Would you like to update the reference?
>> >
>> >         Current:
>> >             [IEEE802.1AX]
>> >                        IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan
>> area
>> >                        networks - Link Aggregation", IEEE Std
>> 802.1AX-2008,
>> >                        DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2008.4668665, November 2008,
>> >                        <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4668665
>> >         <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4668665>>.
>> >
>> >     GIM>> Yes, please update the reference to the latest.
>> >
>> >         -->
>> >
>> >
>> >         5) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion
>> >         of the online Style Guide
>> >         <
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language
>> >         <
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>>
>> >         and let us know if any changes are needed.
>> >
>> >         Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but
>> >         this should
>> >         still be reviewed as a best practice.
>> >
>> >     GIM>> I don't find any updates
>> >
>> >         -->
>> >
>> >
>> >         6) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for abbreviations
>> >         upon first use per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide").
>> >         Please review each
>> >         expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness.
>> >
>> >     GIM>> All expansions are correct.
>> >
>> >         -->
>> >
>> >
>> >         Thank you.
>> >
>> >         RFC Editor/jm
>> >
>> >         On 1/23/24 12:41 PM, [e-mail]
>> >         <mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >
>> >         *****IMPORTANT*****
>> >
>> >         Updated 2024/01/23
>> >
>> >         RFC Author(s):
>> >         --------------
>> >
>> >         Instructions for Completing AUTH48
>> >
>> >         Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed
>> >         and
>> >         approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an
>> RFC.
>> >         If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
>> >         available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/
>> >         <https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/>).
>> >
>> >         You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
>> >         (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before
>> providing
>> >         your approval.
>> >
>> >         Planning your review
>> >         ---------------------
>> >
>> >         Please review the following aspects of your document:
>> >
>> >         *  RFC Editor questions
>> >
>> >             Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC
>> >         Editor
>> >             that have been included in the XML file as comments marked
>> as
>> >             follows:
>> >
>> >             <!-- [rfced] ... -->
>> >
>> >             These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
>> >
>> >         *  Changes submitted by coauthors
>> >
>> >             Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
>> >             coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you
>> >             agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
>> >
>> >         *  Content
>> >
>> >             Please review the full content of the document, as this
>> cannot
>> >             change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular
>> >         attention to:
>> >             - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
>> >             - contact information
>> >             - references
>> >
>> >         *  Copyright notices and legends
>> >
>> >             Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
>> >             RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
>> >             (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/
>> >         <https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/>).
>> >
>> >         *  Semantic markup
>> >
>> >             Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that
>> >         elements of
>> >             content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that
>> >         <sourcecode>
>> >             and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at
>> >             <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary
>> >         <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>>.
>> >
>> >         *  Formatted output
>> >
>> >             Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that
>> the
>> >             formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML
>> >         file, is
>> >             reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting
>> >             limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
>> >
>> >
>> >         Submitting changes
>> >         ------------------
>> >
>> >         To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’
>> >         as all
>> >         the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The
>> >         parties
>> >         include:
>> >
>> >             *  your coauthors
>> >
>> >             * [e-mail]
>> >         <mailto:[e-mail]> (the RPC team)
>> >
>> >             *  other document participants, depending on the stream
>> (e.g.,
>> >                IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs,
>> the
>> >                responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
>> >
>> >             * [e-mail]
>> >         <mailto:[e-mail]>, which is a new archival
>> >         mailing list
>> >                to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active
>> >         discussion
>> >                list:
>> >
>> >               *  More info:
>> >
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
>> <
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
>> >
>> >
>> >               *  The archive itself:
>> >         https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
>> >         <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/>
>> >
>> >               *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily
>> >         opt out
>> >                  of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a
>> >         sensitive matter).
>> >                  If needed, please add a note at the top of the message
>> >         that you
>> >                  have dropped the address. When the discussion is
>> >         concluded,
>> >         [e-mail]
>> >         <mailto:[e-mail]> will be re-added to the
>> CC
>> >         list and
>> >                  its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
>> >
>> >         You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
>> >
>> >         An update to the provided XML file
>> >           — OR —
>> >         An explicit list of changes in this format
>> >
>> >         Section # (or indicate Global)
>> >
>> >         OLD:
>> >         old text
>> >
>> >         NEW:
>> >         new text
>> >
>> >         You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an
>> >         explicit
>> >         list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
>> >
>> >         We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes
>> >         that seem
>> >         beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion
>> >         of text,
>> >         and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be
>> >         found in
>> >         the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a
>> >         stream manager.
>> >
>> >
>> >         Approving for publication
>> >         --------------------------
>> >
>> >         To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email
>> >         stating
>> >         that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY
>> ALL’,
>> >         as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your
>> approval.
>> >
>> >
>> >         Files
>> >         -----
>> >
>> >         The files are available here:
>> >         https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.xml
>> >         <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.xml>
>> >         https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.html
>> >         <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.html>
>> >         https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.pdf
>> >         <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.pdf>
>> >         https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.txt
>> >         <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.txt>
>> >
>> >         Diff file of the text:
>> >         https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-diff.html
>> >         <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-diff.html>
>> >         https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-rfcdiff.html
>> >         <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-rfcdiff.html> (side
>> >         by side)
>> >
>> >         For your convenience, we have also created an alt-diff file that
>> >         will
>> >         allow you to more easily view changes where text has been
>> deleted or
>> >         moved:
>> >         http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-alt-diff.html
>> >         <http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-alt-diff.html>
>> >
>> >         Diff of the XML:
>> >         https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-xmldiff1.html
>> >         <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-xmldiff1.html>
>> >
>> >         The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your
>> own
>> >         diff files of the XML.
>> >
>> >         Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
>> >         https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.original.v2v3.xml
>> >         <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.original.v2v3.xml>
>> >
>> >         XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format
>> >         updates
>> >         only:
>> >         https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.form.xml
>> >         <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.form.xml>
>> >
>> >
>> >         Tracking progress
>> >         -----------------
>> >
>> >         The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>> >         https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9534
>> >         <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9534>
>> >
>> >         Please let us know if you have any questions.
>> >
>> >         Thank you for your cooperation,
>> >
>> >         RFC Editor
>> >
>> >         --------------------------------------
>> >         RFC9534 (draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag-06)
>> >
>> >         Title            : Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
>> >         Extensions for Performance Measurement on LAG
>> >         Author(s)        : Z. Li, T. Zhou, J. Guo, G. Mirsky, R. Gandhi
>> >         WG Chair(s)      : Marcus Ihlar, Tommy Pauly
>> >         Area Director(s) : Martin Duke, Zaheduzzaman Sarker
>> >
>>
>