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

[Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>]

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. -->


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>.
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>
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/).

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]<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

     *  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]<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.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.pdf
   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-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

Diff of the XML:
   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

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
only:
   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

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