Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9326 <draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-11> for your review

[Tal Mizrahi <[e-mail]>]

Dear RFC Editor Team,

Thanks for your work on this document.
I approve the document, subject to the comments below.
Please see my responses and comments inline, marked [TM].

Thanks,
Tal.

On Sat, Oct 8, 2022 at 3:04 AM <[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] Please note that the title of the document has been updated as follows:
>
> a) Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC
> Style Guide").
>
> b) The hyphen in "In-situ" has been removed to be consistent with
> recently published IOAM documents. Please review.
>
> Original:
> In-situ OAM Direct Exporting
>
> Current:
> In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) Direct
> Exporting
> -->

[TM] Looks good.

>
>
> 2) <!-- [rfced] We had the following questions related to similar text in
>      both the Abstract and Introduction:
>
> Original (Abstract):
> This document introduces a new IOAM option type (denoted
> IOAM-Option-Type) called the Direct Export (DEX) Option-Type, which is
> used as a trigger for IOAM data to be directly exported or locally
> aggregated without being pushed into in-flight data packets.
>
> Original (Introduction):
> This document defines a new IOAM-Option-Type called the Direct Export
> (DEX) Option-Type.  This Option-Type is used as a trigger for IOAM
> nodes to locally aggregate and process IOAM data, and/or to export it
> to a receiving entity (or entities).
>
>
> a) We have updated mentions in the text above to use "IOAM Direct
> Export (DEX) Option-Type" to exactly match its use at
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/ioam/ioam.xhtml.  Please let us know
> any objections and/or if similar changes should be made elsewhere in the document (specifically the IANA Considerations section?).

[TM] Looks good, and in my opinion there is no need for further changes.

>
> b) There is some difference in the description of how the DEX
> Option-Type is used in the Intro and Abstract.  Please let us know
> if/how these instances should be made consistent.

[TM] I would be fine with the current text. In my opinion there is no
need for the abstract and introduction to be identical.

>
> -->
>
>
> 3) <!-- [rfced] FYI: We changed "Direct EXporting" to "Direct Exporting" for consistency throughout the document. Please let us know of any objections.
>
> Original:
> DEX: Direct EXporting
>
> Current:
> DEX: Direct Exporting
> -->

[TM] Looks good.

>
>
> 4) <!-- [rfced] FYI: We rearranged parts of this sentence and added more
>      context (specifically to the content in parenthesis) for ease of the
>      reader. Please let us know of any objections.
>
> Original:
> An IOAM encapsulating node configured to incorporate the DEX
> Option-Type encapsulates (possibly a subset of) the packets it
> forwards with the DEX Option-Type, and MAY export and/or collect the
> requested IOAM data immediately.
>
> Current:
> An IOAM encapsulating node configured to incorporate the DEX
> Option-Type encapsulates the packets (and possibly a subset of the
> packets) it forwards with the DEX Option-Type and MAY export and/or
> collect the requested IOAM data immediately.

[TM] I suggest the following change:
OLD:
and possibly a subset
NEW:
or possibly a subset



> -->
>
>
> 5) <!-- [rfced] Will readers know what "it" is referring to in this
>      sentence?
>
> Original:
> Therefore, an IOAM encapsulating node that supports the DEX
> Option-Type MUST support the ability to incorporate the DEX
> Option-Type selectively into a subset of the packets that are
> forwarded by it.
>
> Perhaps:
> Therefore, an IOAM encapsulating node that supports the DEX
> Option-Type MUST support the ability to incorporate the DEX
> Option-Type selectively into a subset of the packets that are
> forwarded by the DEX Option-Type.
> -->
>

[TM] Looks good.

>
> 6) <!-- [rfced] We suggest rephrasing and condensing this sentence, as it may be difficult to parse for some readers due to the number of adverbs. Would the suggested text change the original meaning of the sentence?
>
> Original:
> As mentioned above, the data can be locally collected, and optionally
> can be aggregated and exported to a receiving entity, either
> proactively or on-demand.
>
> Perhaps:
> As mentioned above, the data can be locally collected, aggregated, and
> exported to a receiving entity proactively or on-demand.
> -->

[TM] Yes, except that I suggest replacing "and" with "and/or".

>
>
> 7) <!-- [rfced] FYI: In Section 3.2, we updated the terms "Optional
>      fields", "Flow ID", and "Sequence Number" to fall under a nested
>      definition list. Please confirm that this accurately describes
>      the figure and let us know if there are any objections.
> -->

[TM] Looks good.

>
>
> 8) <!--[rfced] FYI - I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-flags is in AUTH48 state. We have
>      updated the reference in this document to point to the RFC-to-be info
>      assuming that document will be published before this one.  Please
>      advise on how you would like to proceed in the event that
>      I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-flags does not complete AUTH48 prior to this
>      doc (i.e., revert the reference to the I-D format or hold on
>      publication of this document?).-->
>

[TM] There is no reason why the flags document should be delayed.
Let's proceed with the reference to the RFC number.

>
> 9) <!-- [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.
> -->

[TM] In my opinion there is no need for any changes in this context.

>
>
> Thank you.
>
> RFC Editor/mc/mf
>
> *****IMPORTANT*****
>
> Updated 2022/10/07
>
> 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/rfc9326.xml
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9326.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9326.pdf
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9326.txt
>
> Diff file of the text:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9326-diff.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9326-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>
> Diff of the XML:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9326-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/rfc9326.original.v2v3.xml
>
> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
> only:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9326.form.xml
>
>
> Tracking progress
> -----------------
>
> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9326
>
> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>
> Thank you for your cooperation,
>
> RFC Editor
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC9326 (draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export-11)
>
> Title            : In-situ OAM Direct Exporting
> Author(s)        : H. Song, B. Gafni, F. Brockners, S. Bhandari, T. Mizrahi
> WG Chair(s)      : Marcus Ihlar, Tommy Pauly
> Area Director(s) : Martin Duke, Zaheduzzaman Sarker
>
>