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

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

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]> 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] 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] (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/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
>
>
>