Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9534 <draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag-06> for your review
Jean Mahoney <jmahoney@amsl.com> Wed, 24 January 2024 15:19 UTC
Return-Path: <jmahoney@amsl.com>
X-Original-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 937EFC14F6EA; Wed, 24 Jan 2024 07:19:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wQgs5Krl3zX3; Wed, 24 Jan 2024 07:19:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from c8a.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6391AC14F5FE; Wed, 24 Jan 2024 07:19:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8789424B432; Wed, 24 Jan 2024 07:19:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g0F25I_lMkiG; Wed, 24 Jan 2024 07:19:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.203] (unknown [47.186.48.51]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 16673424B455; Wed, 24 Jan 2024 07:19:34 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <d560add1-1edf-4201-a88b-0d4cebab8fea@amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 09:19:32 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: "li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com" <li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com>, Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, "rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: "guo.jun2@zte.com.cn" <guo.jun2@zte.com.cn>, "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <rgandhi@cisco.com>, "ippm-ads@ietf.org" <ippm-ads@ietf.org>, IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>, "marcus.ihlar" <marcus.ihlar@ericsson.com>, Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>, "auth48archive@rfc-editor.org" <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>, "Zhukeyi (Kaiyin, Enterprise NE)" <zhukeyi@huawei.com>
References: <20240123184451.AC7D6E7C65@rfcpa.amsl.com> <CA+RyBmXffX7SKnicX7w4nbW0U1s21j6pH3qyqY0pSDQqSCS_QA@mail.gmail.com> <24a6d95384c140d69fc4e47db2b5a9bd@huawei.com> <SY4P282MB2933271C11D934BD2085D365FC7B2@SY4P282MB2933.AUSP282.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
From: Jean Mahoney <jmahoney@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <SY4P282MB2933271C11D934BD2085D365FC7B2@SY4P282MB2933.AUSP282.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/zn9OLm0U6b57avH4hwRWZLWnvnw>
Subject: Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9534 <draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag-06> for your review
X-BeenThere: auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Archiving AUTH48 exchanges between the RFC Production Center, the authors, and other related parties" <auth48archive.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/>
List-Post: <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 15:19:43 -0000
Zhenqiang, Greg, Tianran, Thank you for your quick responses! We have updated the document based on your feedback: https://www.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/authors/rfc9534-lastrfcdiff.html Zhenqiang, we have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9534 The files have been posted here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-diff.html (all changes) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-rfcdiff.html (all changes side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-alt-diff.html We will await further word from you and your coauthors regarding other AUTH48 changes and/or approval. Best regards, RFC Editor/jm On 1/23/24 10:13 PM, li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com wrote: > Hello Editor and coauthors, > > I have no objection on Greg's and Tianran's suggestion. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Best Regards, > Zhenqiang Li > China Mobile > li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com > > *From:* Tianran Zhou <mailto:zhoutianran@huawei.com> > *Date:* 2024-01-24 11:08 > *To:* Greg Mirsky <mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com>; > rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> > *CC:* li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com <mailto:li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com>; > guo.jun2@zte.com.cn <mailto:guo.jun2@zte.com.cn>; rgandhi@cisco.com > <mailto:rgandhi@cisco.com>; ippm-ads@ietf.org > <mailto:ippm-ads@ietf.org>; ippm-chairs@ietf.org > <mailto:ippm-chairs@ietf.org>; marcus.ihlar@ericsson.com > <mailto:marcus.ihlar@ericsson.com>; martin.h.duke@gmail.com > <mailto:martin.h.duke@gmail.com>; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>; Zhukeyi(Kaiyin,Datacom > Standard&Patent) <mailto:zhukeyi@huawei.com> > *Subject:* RE: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9534 > <draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag-06> for your review > > 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:gregimirsky@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 24, 2024 10:53 AM > *To:* rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org > *Cc:* li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com; Tianran Zhou > <zhoutianran@huawei.com>; guo.jun2@zte.com.cn; rgandhi@cisco.com; > ippm-ads@ietf.org; ippm-chairs@ietf.org; marcus.ihlar@ericsson.com; > martin.h.duke@gmail.com; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > *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 <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org > <mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>> 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 > <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 > <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 > <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, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org > <mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> 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/ > <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 > > * rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org > <mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> (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). > > * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>, 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, > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> 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.xml> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.html > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.html> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.pdf > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.pdf> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534.txt > <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-diff.html> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-rfcdiff.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 > <http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-alt-diff.html> > > Diff of the XML: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9534-xmldiff1.html > <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 > <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 > <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 > <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 >
- [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9534 <draft-ietf-ippm-… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9534 <draft-ietf-i… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9534 <draft-ietf-i… Tianran Zhou
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9534 <draft-ietf-i… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9534 <draft-ietf-i… Tianran Zhou
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9534 <draft-ietf-i… li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9534 <draft-ietf-i… li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9534 <draft-ietf-i… Jean Mahoney
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9534 <draft-ietf-i… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9534 <draft-ietf-i… Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9534 <draft-ietf-i… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9534 <draft-ietf-i… Tianran Zhou
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9534 <draft-ietf-i… li_zhenqiang@hotmail.com
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9534 <draft-ietf-i… Jean Mahoney
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9534 <draft-ietf-i… Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9534 <draft-ietf-i… Jean Mahoney
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9534 <draft-ietf-i… guo.jun2
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9534 <draft-ietf-i… Jean Mahoney