Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9506 <draft-ietf-ippm-explicit-flow-measurements-07> for your review

[[e-mail]]

Hello Jean,

I approve the publication.

Best regards,

-Alex

On 10/28/23 01:00, Jean Mahoney wrote:
> Giuseppe,
> 
> Thank you for your response. We have updated the document based on your feedback:
> 
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9506.txt
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9506.pdf
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9506.html
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9506.xml
> 
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9506-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9506-rfcdiff.html (comprehensive diff 
> side by side)
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9506-auth48diff.html (diff of all 
> AUTH48 changes)
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9506-auth48rfcdiff.html (diff of 
> AUTH48 changes side by side)
> 
> We have also noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page:
> 
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9506
> 
> We will await further word from your coauthors regarding other AUTH48 changes 
> and/or approval.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> RFC Editor/jm
> 
> On 10/27/23 11:44 AM, Giuseppe Fioccola wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Thank you for your review.
>> I approve this RFC for publication.
>> Please find my replies inline tagged as [GF].
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Giuseppe
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2023 11:08 PM
>> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Giuseppe 
>> Fioccola <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; 
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9506 
>> <draft-ietf-ippm-explicit-flow-measurements-07> for your review
>>
>>
>> Authors,
>>
>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the 
>> following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>>
>> 1) <!-- [rfced] Should the short title, which is displayed in the PDF, be 
>> updated to better match the full title?
>>
>> Current:
>>     Delay and Loss Bits
>>
>> Perhaps:
>>     Host-to-Network Flow Measurements
>> -->
>>
>> [GF]: Agree. Thanks for the suggestion.
>>
>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the 
>> title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
>>
>> [GF]: Here are some keywords: Performance, Monitoring, Passive, Hybrid, Loss, 
>> Delay, Client, Server, On-path, Observer, Probe
>>
>> 3) <!-- [rfced] Section 2.2.5. We're having difficulty parsing the following 
>> lead-in phrase:
>>
>> Original:
>>     A unidirectional observer or in case of asymmetric routing, upon
>>     detecting a delay sample:
>>
>> Perhaps (Making the lead-in phrase conditional):
>>     If the observer is unidirectional or in the case of asymmetric
>>     routing, then upon detecting a delay sample:
>> -->
>>
>> [GF]: It is ok. Thanks.
>>
>> 4) <!-- [rfced] Section 3. Is there a word missing in the following sentence?
>> Should it say "(or each sub-flow..."?
>>
>> Original:
>>     Each endpoint maintains appropriate counters independently and
>>     separately for each separately identifiable flow (each sub-flow for
>>     multipath connections).
>> -->
>>
>> [GF]: Yes, it can be changed as follows:
>>     Each endpoint maintains appropriate counters independently and
>>     separately for each identifiable flow (or each sub-flow for multipath
>>     connections).
>>
>> 5) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.1. Do the following updates improve the clarity of 
>> the round-trip reflection exchange?
>>
>> Original:
>>
>>     The overall exchange comprises:
>>
>>        *  the client selects and consequently sets the T bit to 1 in order
>>           to identify a first train of packets;
>>
>>        *  the server, upon receiving each packet included in the first
>>           train, reflects to the client a respective second train of packets
>>           of the same size as the first train received, by setting the T bit
>>           to 1;
>>
>>        *  the client, upon receiving each packet included in the second
>>           train, reflects to the server a respective third train of packets
>>           of the same size as the second train received, by setting the T
>>           bit to 1;
>>
>>        *  the server, upon receiving each packet included in the third
>>           train, finally reflects to the client a respective fourth train of
>>           packets of the same size as the third train received, by setting
>>           the T bit to 1.
>>
>> Perhaps (adding text to the lead-in sentence and changing the order of the 
>> sub-steps in list items 2-4):
>>
>>     The overall exchange comprises the following steps:
>>        *  the client selects and consequently sets the T bit to 1 in order
>>           to identify a first train of packets;
>>
>>        *  upon receiving each packet included in the first train, the server
>>           sets the T bit to 1 and reflects to the client a respective second
>>           train of packets of the same size as the first train received;
>>
>>        *  upon receiving each packet included in the second train, the client
>>           sets the T bit to 1 and reflects to the server a respective third
>>           train of packets of the same size as the second train received;
>>
>>        *  upon receiving each packet included in the third train, the server
>>           sets the T bit to 1 and finally reflects to the client a respective
>>           fourth train of packets of the same size as the third train received.
>> -->
>>
>> [GF]: I'm ok with your proposed changes.
>>
>> 6) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.1.2. In the following sentence, what correlations is 
>> the observer trying to maintain?
>>
>> Original:
>>     The connection between T Bit and Spin bit helps the correlations on the
>>     observer.
>>
>> Possibly:
>>     The connection between the T bit and Spin bit helps the observer correlate
>>     packet trains.
>> -->
>>
>> [GF]: Yes, your assumption is correct.
>>
>> 7) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.1.2. In the following sentence, are "just" 1/4 of 
>> the packets monitored or are "approximately" 1/4 of the packets monitored? 
>> Also the numbers in this section are formatted with <tt> (e.g., <tt>~1/4</tt>).
>> Should they be?
>>
>> Original:
>>     Choosing a generation phase of 1-RTT, we would produce measurements
>>     every 4-RTT, monitoring just ~1/4 of packets in the slower direction.
>> -->
>>
>> [GF]: It is "approximately" 1/4 of the packets monitored. We can modify as 
>> follows:
>>     Choosing a generation phase of 1-RTT, we would produce measurements
>>     every 4-RTT, monitoring ~1/4 of packets in the slower direction.
>> Regarding how the numbers are formatted, you can change it. I guess it comes 
>> from the conversion from MD to XML.
>>
>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.2. In the following sentence, it is not clear what 
>> is allowed to mark the blocks. Please let us know how we can clarify the 
>> statement.
>>
>> Original:
>>     This method is based on the Alternate-Marking method
>>     [AltMark] and the Q bit represents the "packet color" that allows to
>>     mark consecutive blocks of packets with different colors.
>> -->
>>
>> [GF]: This sentence may be rephrased as follows:
>>     This method is based on the Alternate-Marking method
>>     [AltMark] and the Q bit represents the "packet color" that can be
>>     switched between 0 and 1 in order to mark consecutive blocks of
>>     packets with different colors.
>>
>> 9) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.2. Does the following update improve the readability 
>> of the sentence?
>>
>> Original:
>>     The method based on fixed timer
>>     can measure packet loss on a network segment by cooperating and
>>     synchronized observers on both ends of the segment comparing packets
>>     counters for the same packet blocks.
>>
>> Perhaps (saying at the beginning who can use the fixed-timer method):
>>     Cooperating and synchronized observers on either end of a network
>>     segment can use the fixed-timer method to measure packet loss on the
>>     segment by comparing packet counters for the same packet blocks.
>> -->
>>
>> [GF]: Yes, the proposed text is ok. Thank you.
>>
>> 10) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.3. We could not find an Echo Loss bit in RFC 7713 
>> [ConEx], nor could we find a field that reported an approximate number of lost 
>> bytes. Please let us know how we may update this sentence.
>>
>> Original:
>>     This loss signaling is similar to loss signaling in [ConEx], except
>>     the Loss Event bit is reporting the exact number of lost packets,
>>     whereas Echo Loss bit in [ConEx] is reporting an approximate number
>>     of lost bytes.
>> -->
>>
>> [GF]: The correct name of the field in RFC 7713 is Re-Echo-Loss. But, I 
>> suggest to revise this sentence as below:
>>     This loss signaling is similar to loss signaling in [ConEx], except that
>>     the Loss Event bit is reporting the exact number of lost packets,
>>     whereas the signal mechanism in [ConEx] is reporting an approximate
>>     number of lost bytes.
>>
>> 11) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.3.2.1. In the sentence below, should the observer 
>> measure the upstream loss rate for one RTT before starting to measure the 
>> end-to-end loss?
>> Please help us clarify this sentence:
>>
>> Original:
>>     Whenever the observer needs to perform a computation that uses both
>>     upstream and end-to-end loss rate measurements, it should use
>>     upstream loss rate leading the end-to-end loss rate by approximately
>>     1 RTT.
>> -->
>>
>> [GF]: It is because end-to-end loss is observed with a delay of between 1 RTT 
>> and 1 RTO relative to the upstream loss. We may rephrase as below:
>>     Whenever the observer needs to perform a computation that uses both
>>     upstream and end-to-end loss rate measurements, it should consider the
>>     upstream loss rate leading up the end-to-end loss rate by approximately
>>     1 RTT.
>>
>> 12) <!-- [rfced] Section 4. In Table 2, are the arrows (e.g., "-> see Q") 
>> necessary?
>> In the bottom-right cell, may we expand "pk" to "pkts"?
>>
>> Current:
>>     + - - - - - -+- - +- - - - - - +- - - - - - -+ - -+ - - - - -+- - - +
>>     | QL: sQuare | 2  |  Upstream  |      x2     | #  |-> see Q  |see Q |
>>     | + Loss Ev. |    +- - - - - - +- - - - - - -+ - -+ - - - - -+- - - +
>>     | Bits       |    | Downstream |      x2     | #  |-> see    |see L |
>>     |            |    |            |             |    |Q|L       |      |
>>     |            |    +- - - - - - +- - - - - - -+ - -+ - - - - -+- - - +
>>     |            |    |    E2E     |      x2     | #  |-> see L  |see L |
>>     + - - - - - -+- - +- - - - - - +- - - - - - -+ - -+ - - - - -+- - - +
>>     | QR: sQuare | 2  |  Upstream  |      x2     | *  |Rate over |see Q |
>>     | + Ref. Sq. |    +- - - - - - +- - - - - - -+ - -+N*ppa     + - - -+
>>     | Bits       |    |   3/4 RT   |      x2     | *  |pkts (see |N*ppa |
>>     |            |    +- - - - - - +- - - - - - -+ - -+Q bit for |pk    |
>>     |            |    |    !E2E    |     E2E,    | *  |N)        |(see Q|
>>     |            |    |            | Downstream, |    |          |bit   |
>>     |            |    |            |   Half RT   |    |          |for N)|
>>     + - - - - - -+- - +- - - - - - +- - - - - - -+ - -+ - - - - -+- - - +
>> -->
>>
>> [GF]: Yes, the arrows can be omitted. We can also replace "pk" with "pkts".
>>
>> 13) <!-- [rfced] Section 7. Does the following update improve the readability 
>> of the sentence?
>>
>> Original:
>>     The measurements described in this document do not imply new packets
>>     injected into the network causing potential harm to the network
>>     itself and to data traffic.
>>
>> Perhaps (clarifying that packets are not implied to cause harm):
>>     The measurements described in this document do not imply that new packets
>>     injected into the network can cause potential harm to the network
>>     itself and to data traffic.
>> -->
>>
>> [GF]: The proposed changes are ok.
>>
>> 14) <!-- [rfced] Terminology
>>
>> a) We have expanded the following abbreviations. Please review each expansion 
>> in the document carefully to ensure correctness.
>>
>>     CE - Congestion Experienced (from RFC 9000)
>>     CPE - Customer Premises Equipment
>>     E2E - end to end
>>     PE - Provider Edge
>>     RTO - retransmission timeout
>>     SCTP - Stream Control Transmission Protocol
>>
>> [GF]: Ok
>>
>> c) Please help us make these terms consistent. The number of instances are 
>> given in parentheses:
>>
>>     1-RTT (1) vs 1 RTT (4)
>>     2-RTT (1) vs 2 RTT (2)
>>     4-RTT (1) vs 4 RTT (0)
>>     6-RTT (1) vs 6 RTT (2)
>>
>>     Generation Phase (4, (2 in titles)) vs Generation phase (2) vs generation 
>> phase (4)
>>     Pause Phase (2) vs Pause phase (1) vs pause phase (1)
>>     Reflection Phase (4, (2 in titles)) vs Reflection phase (2) vs reflection 
>> phase (1)
>>
>>     Loss Event bit (7)  vs Loss event bit (1, definition)
>>     Reflection square signal bit (1, definition) vs Reflection square bit (3)
>>     sQuare bit (4) vs sQuare signal bit (1, definition)
>>     Reflection Block (1, definition) vs reflection block (2) vs R Block (11)
>>     spin-bit period (4) vs Spin bit period (2) vs spin period (5, definition)
>> -->
>>
>> [GF]: I think we can prefer the following terms:
>> 1 RTT
>> 2 RTT
>> 4 RTT
>> 6 RTT
>> Generation Phase
>> Pause Phase
>> Reflection Phase
>> Loss Event bit
>> Reflection square bit
>> sQuare bit
>> Reflection Block
>> Spin bit period
>>
>> 15) <!-- [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. In addition, please consider 
>> whether "tradition" should be updated for clarity.  While the NIST website 
>> <https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/
>> nist-technical-series-publications-author-instructions#table1> indicates that 
>> this term is potentially biased, it is also ambiguous.  "Tradition" is a 
>> subjective term, as it is not the same for everyone.
>> -->
>>
>> [GF]: We could omit the term "tradition". I have found just one occurrence: 
>> "Traditionally, network operators...". It can be changed to "Network 
>> operators...".
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> RFC Editor/jm/ap
>>
>>
>> On Oct 26, 2023, at 2:06 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>
>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>
>> Updated 2023/10/26
>>
>> 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/rfc9506.xml
>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9506.html
>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9506.pdf
>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9506.txt
>>
>> Diff file of the text:
>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9506-diff.html
>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9506-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>>
>> Diff of the XML:
>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9506-xmldiff1.html
>>
>>
>> Tracking progress
>> -----------------
>>
>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9506
>>
>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>>
>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>>
>> RFC Editor
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> RFC9506 (draft-ietf-ippm-explicit-flow-measurements-07)
>>
>> Title            : Explicit Host-to-Network Flow Measurements Techniques
>> Author(s)        : M. Cociglio, A. Ferrieux, G. Fioccola, I. Lubashev, F. 
>> Bulgarella, M. Nilo, I. Hamchaoui, R. Sisto
>> WG Chair(s)      : Marcus Ihlar, Tommy Pauly
>> Area Director(s) : Martin Duke, Zaheduzzaman Sarker
>>
>>
>>
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.