Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9566 <draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-11> for your review

[Jean Mahoney <[e-mail]>]

Bala'zs, Andy,

Thank you for your replies. We have updated the document:

    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566-lastrfcdiff.html (these 
changes side by side)
    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.txt
    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.pdf
    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.html
    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.xml
    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566-diff.html
    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566-rfcdiff.html

We have also noted your approvals on the AUTH48 status page:

    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9566

We have an additional question: in Section 4.2. Should "on" be instead 
"an" in the following sentence?

Original:
    The PREOF capable DetNet IP encapsulation builds on encapsulating
    DetNet PseudoWire (PW) directly over UDP.

Perhaps:
    The PREOF-capable DetNet IP encapsulation builds an encapsulating
    DetNet pseudowire (PW) directly over UDP.

We will await further word from you and Janos regarding other AUTH48 
changes and/or approval.

Best regards,
RFC Editor/jm


On 4/10/24 10:16 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> I also agree, with the changes listed below the document is ready for 
> publication.
> 
> Cheers,
> Andy
> 
> 
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 10:16 AM Balázs Varga A 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi JM,
>     Many thanks for your great comments/suggestions. Please find
>     reactions inline.
>     With these changes I confirm that the document is ready for publication.
>     Kind regards
>     Bala'zs
> 
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2024 12:18 AM
>     To: Balázs Varga A <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Janos Farkas
>     <[e-mail] <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]>
>     Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9566
>     <draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-11> 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] Title. FYI, we have expanded PREOF in the title to
>     match our guidance on expanding abbreviations upon first use. Could
>     the title be shortened by removing an instance of "DetNet"?
> 
>     Original:
>        Deterministic Networking (DetNet): DetNet PREOF via MPLS over UDP/IP
> 
>     Current:
>        Deterministic Networking (DetNet): DetNet Packet Replication,
>        Elimination, and Ordering Functions (PREOF) via MPLS over UDP/IP
> 
>     Perhaps:
>        Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Packet Replication, Elimination,
>        and Ordering Functions (PREOF) via MPLS over UDP/IP
>     -->
>     <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Thanks.
> 
> 
>     2) <!-- [rfced] Title. FYI, we have made the short title, which is
>     displayed in the header of the PDF, consistent with the title of the
>     RFC. Please let us know if any changes are necessary.
> 
>     Original:
>        PREOF DetNet IP
> 
>     Current:
>        DetNet PREOF via MPLS over UDP/IP
>     -->
>     <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Thanks.
> 
> 
>     3) <!-- [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>.
>     -->
>     <Balazs> Suggested keywords: DetNet, IP Data Plane, Service
>     sub-layer, Replication, Elimination, Ordering.
> 
> 
>     4) <!-- [rfced] Section 3. Because "practically" usually means
>     "almost" and "gains" typically means "acquires", may we update the
>     following sentence?
> 
>     Original:
>         The described solution practically gains from MPLS header fields
>         without requiring the support of the MPLS forwarding plane.
> 
>     Perhaps:
>         The described solution leverages MPLS header fields
>         without requiring the support of the MPLS forwarding plane.
>     -->
>     <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Thanks.
> 
> 
>     5) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.3. FYI, we have updated the following
>     sentence to improve clarity. Please let us know if any updates are
>     necessary.
> 
>     Original:
>         Note, that Service-IDs is a local ID on the receiver side providing
>         identification of the DetNet flow at the downstream DetNet service
>         sub-layer receiver.
> 
>     Current:
>         Note that the Service-ID is a local ID on the receiver side that
>         identifies the DetNet flow at the downstream DetNet service
>         sub-layer receiver.
>     -->
>     <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Thanks.
> 
> 
>     6) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.4. Does the sentence below mean that the
>     nodes are configured with the aggregation method?
> 
>     Original:
>         The option used for aggregation is known by configuration of the
>         aggregation/de-aggregation nodes.
> 
>     Perhaps:
>         The aggregation method is configured in the
>         aggregation/de-aggregation nodes.
>     -->
>     <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Thanks.
> 
> 
>     7) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.5. Is only a Service-ID used to identify a
>     flow or is a Service-ID used with other information to identify a flow?
> 
>     Original:
>         A Service-ID can be allocated to be unique and enabling
>         DetNet flow identification regardless of which input interface
>     or UDP
>         tunnel the packet is received.
> 
>     Perhaps:
>         A unique Service-ID can be allocated and can be used
>         to identify a DetNet flow regardless of which input interface or UDP
>         tunnel receives the packet.
>     -->
>     <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Thanks. If the Service-ID is unique,
>     no other information is needed.
> 
> 
>     8) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.5. The following sentence implies that
>     there is a single header that contains both UDP and IP information.
> 
>     Original:
>         ...each member flow requires their own Service-ID, UDP
>         and IP header information.
> 
>     Perhaps:
>         ...each member flow requires its own Service-ID, UDP
>         header information, and IP header information.
>     -->
>     <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Thanks.
> 
> 
>     9) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.5. Is part of the processing the
>     assignment of the Service-ID? Is the header information assigned?
> 
>     Original:
>         The incoming PREOF processing can be implemented via the
>     provisioning
>         of received Service-ID, UDP and IP header information.
> 
>     Possibly:
>         The incoming PREOF processing can be implemented by assigning
>         a Service-ID to the received DetNet flow and processing the
>         information in the UDP and IP headers.
>     -->
>     <Balazs> Assigning a Service-ID is a prerequisite for data plane
>     processing.
>     So, I think your suggestion describes better the operation. Thanks.
> 
> 
>     10) <!-- [rfced] Section 5. Does the following list item contain
>     multiple things (e.g., "PREOF and related Service-IDs")? If so,
>     should they be on separate lines?
> 
>     Original:
>         *  PREOF + related Service-ID(s).
>     -->
>     <Balazs> Good catch, here we have two information elements. Proposed
>     change:
>     Original:
>         *  PREOF + related Service-ID(s).
>     NEW:
>         *  Type of PREOF to be executed on the DetNet flow.
>         *  Service-ID(s) used by the member flows.
>     END
> 
> 
>     11) <!-- [rfced] Informative References. FYI, we have updated the
>     following reference to use the URL provided by the DOI. Please let
>     us know if any updates are necessary.
> 
>     Original:
>         [IEEE8021CB]
>                    IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
>                    networks - Frame Replication and Elimination for
>                    Reliability", DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2017.8091139, October
>                    2017,
>                   
>     <https://standards.ieee.org/standard/802_1CB-2017.html
>     <https://standards.ieee.org/standard/802_1CB-2017.html>>.
> 
>     Current:
>         [IEEE8021CB]
>                    IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
>                    networks - Frame Replication and Elimination for
>                    Reliability", IEEE Std 802.1CB-2017,
>                    DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2017.8091139, October 2017,
>                    <https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2017.8091139
>     <https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2017.8091139>>.
>     -->
>     <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Thanks.
> 
> 
>     12) <!-- [rfced] Informative References. Because the original URL
>     (https://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/cv-drafts/d1/802-1CBcv-d1-2.pdf <https://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/cv-drafts/d1/802-1CBcv-d1-2.pdf>) requires credentials to access, we recommend updating the reference to point to a landing page. We also note that the draft has been published as an Amendment.
> 
>     Current:
>         [IEEEP8021CBcv]
>                    Kehrer, S., "FRER YANG Data Model and Management
>                    Information Base Module", IEEE P802.1CBcv
>                    /D1.2 P802.1CBcv, March 2021,
>                   
>     <https://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/cv-drafts/d1/802-
>     <https://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/cv-drafts/d1/802->
>                    1CBcv-d1-2.pdf>.
> 
>     Perhaps:
>         [IEEE8021CBcv]
>                    IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
>                    networks - Frame Replication and Elimination for
>                    Reliability - Amendment 1: Information Model, YANG Data
>                    Model, and Management Information Base Module", Amendment
>                    to IEEE Std 802.1CB-2017, IEEE Std 802.1CBcv-2021,
>                    DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.9715061, February 2022,
>                    <https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.9715061
>     <https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.9715061>>.
>     -->
>     <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Thanks.
> 
> 
>     13) <!-- [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.
>     -->
>     <Balazs> Your changes are OK. Thanks.
> 
> 
>     14) <!-- [rfced] Terminology. May we hyphenate "PREOF capable" for
>     ease of reading? For example:
> 
>     Original:
>         Figure 5 shows using PREOF in a PREOF capable DetNet IP network...
> 
>     Perhaps
>         Figure 5 shows using PREOF in a PREOF-capable DetNet IP network...
>     -->
>     <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Please do this change also in the
>     titles of Fig2, Fig3, and 4.6 Section. Many thanks.
> 
> 
>     15) <!-- [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.
>     -->
>     <Balazs> Yes, I have reviewed "Inclusive Language". No changes are
>     needed.
> 
> 
>     Thank you.
> 
>     RFC Editor/jm
> 
>     On 4/3/24 5:13 PM, [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>     *****IMPORTANT*****
> 
>     Updated 2024/04/03
> 
>     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/rfc9566.xml
>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.xml>
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.html
>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.html>
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.pdf
>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.pdf>
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.txt
>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.txt>
> 
>     Diff file of the text:
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566-diff.html
>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566-diff.html>
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566-rfcdiff.html
>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566-rfcdiff.html> (side by side)
> 
>     Diff of the XML:
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566-xmldiff1.html
>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566-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/rfc9566.original.v2v3.xml
>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.original.v2v3.xml>
> 
>     XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
>     only:
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.form.xml
>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.form.xml>
> 
> 
>     Tracking progress
>     -----------------
> 
>     The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9566
>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9566>
> 
>     Please let us know if you have any questions.
> 
>     Thank you for your cooperation,
> 
>     RFC Editor
> 
>     --------------------------------------
>     RFC9566 (draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-11)
> 
>     Title            : Deterministic Networking (DetNet): DetNet PREOF
>     via MPLS over UDP/IP
>     Author(s)        : B. Varga, J. Farkas, A. Malis
>     WG Chair(s)      : Lou Berger, János Farkas
> 
>     Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, John Scudder, Gunter Van de Velde
> 
>