Authors, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file.
1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> 2) <!--[rfced] Please clarify this sentence. Is the intended meaning (i) "This correlation enables the detection of changes and of the impact." or (ii) "This correlation enables the detection and the impact."? Original: This correlation enables the detection of changes in forwarding paths, such as updated intermediate hops or interfaces, and the resulting impact on delay experienced by customer traffic. Perhaps (assuming (i), adding a second "of"): This correlation enables the detection of changes in forwarding paths, such as updated intermediate hops or interfaces, and of the resulting impact on delay experienced by customer traffic. Or (assuming (i), for more precision): This correlation enables the detection of (a) changes in forwarding paths, such as updated intermediate hops or interfaces, and (b) the resulting impact on delay experienced by customer traffic. --> 3) <!--[rfced] Should "element Identifier" be "Information Element identifier"? The latter term is used in RFC 7011 (which you had mentioned in the intake form). Original: This category includes multiple indexes of the registered performance metrics: the element Identifier and Metric Name. --> 4) <!--[rfced] FYI, we added "is" to make the 2nd sentence complete in each definition below. Please let us know if a different meaning was intended. For example: Original: The measurement of one-way delay based on a single Observation Point [RFC7011] somewhere in the network. Current: The measurement of one-way delay is based on a single Observation Point [RFC7011] somewhere in the network. --> 5) <!-- [rfced] FYI, we corrected this section number as follows; please review. Section 2 of [RFC2330] is the copyright statement; the terms mentioned are defined in Section 11 of [RFC2330]. Original: Note that terms such as "singleton" and "sample" are defined in Section 2 of [RFC2330]. Perhaps: Note that terms such as "singleton" and "sample" are defined in Section 11 of [RFC2330]. --> 6) <!-- [rfced] RFC 6991 has been obsoleted by RFC 9911. We have replaced each citation of RFC 6991 with RFC 9911, as the section numbers seem to contain the data types being mentioned. Please review and let us know any further updates. For example: Original: or ipv6-address-no-zone value for IPv6; see Section 4 of [RFC6991]). Current: or ipv6-address-no-zone value for IPv6; see Section 4 of [RFC9911]). --> 7) <!--[rfced] We suggest changing "analysis choice" (4 instances) to "analytic choice" or "analytical choice", because "analysis" is a noun. We note the term "analysis choice" is only used RFC 8912. For example: Original: see Section 5 of [RFC6703] for background on this analysis choice. Suggested: see Section 5 of [RFC6703] for background on this analytic choice. --> 8) <!--[rfced] FYI, Revision Date will be updated before publication.--> 9) <!--[rfced] Please clarify "as defined to the following [...] dimensions"; should it be "as defined across the following [...] dimensions"? Original: The measured On-Path delay can be aggregated with Flow Aggregation as defined in [RFC7015] to the following device and control-plane dimensions [IANA-IPFIX] to determine: Perhaps: The measured On-Path delay can be aggregated with Flow Aggregation as defined in [RFC7015] across the following device and control-plane dimensions [IANA-IPFIX] to determine: --> 10) <!-- [rfced] FYI, we simplified this sentence as follows; please review. Original: Let us consider the example depicted in Figure 1 from Section 1 as topology example. Current: Let us consider Figure 1 as a topology example. --> 11) <!--[rfced] How may this be rephrased to avoid the odd phrase "offload the IPFIX Exporter from calculating the mean"? Specifically, rather than "offload X from doing a task", we can offload the task - or we can offload X by doing the task elsewhere. Original: The mean (average) path delay can be calculated by dividing the pathDelaySumDeltaMicroseconds(533) by the packetDeltaCount(2) at the IPFIX data collection in order to offload the IPFIX Exporter from calculating the mean for every Flow at export time. Perhaps ("offload" changed to "prevent"): The mean (average) path delay can be calculated by dividing the pathDelaySumDeltaMicroseconds(533) by the packetDeltaCount(2) at the IPFIX data collection in order to prevent the IPFIX Exporter from calculating the mean for every Flow at export time. --> 12) <!--[rfced] We suggest changing "being accounted" to "being counted" here. Please review the intended meaning. Original: Unsigned64 has been chosen as type for pathDelaySumDeltaMicroseconds to support cases with large delay numbers and where many packets are being accounted. Perhaps: Unsigned64 has been chosen as type for pathDelaySumDeltaMicroseconds to support cases with large delay numbers and where many packets are being counted. --> 13) <!--[rfced] Should "node" be plural "nodes"? In other words, is this about both an intermediate node and decapsulating node? Also, is it accurate that "on-path delay" should be "On-Path delay" as it is elsewhere in this document? Original: [...] and be read at the OAM header intermediate and decapsulating node to calculate the on-path delay. Perhaps: [...] and be read at the OAM header intermediate and decapsulating nodes to calculate the On-Path delay. --> 14) <!--[rfced] Is the intended meaning that attacks by the receiver may be possible? If so, we suggest changing "for" to "by" or rephrasing otherwise. Original: For example, exporting delay metrics may make attacks possible for the receiver of this information; ... Perhaps: For example, exporting delay metrics may make attacks possible by the receiver of this information; ... --> 15) <!-- [rfced] [RFC7012] is not cited in the text. Please let us know where it should be cited; otherwise it will be deleted from the references section. [RFC7012] Claise, B., Ed. and B. Trammell, Ed., "Information Model for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012, DOI 10.17487/RFC7012, September 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7012>. --> 16) <!-- [rfced] FYI, this sentence has been updated to remove the pointer to Section 1. Rationale: Figure 1 is specific enough for the reader to find the information. And it's in Section 3, not Section 1. Original: Taking Figure 1 from Section 1 as topology example. Current: Let's take Figure 1 as a topology example. --> 17) <!--[rfced] For Table 4, is it correct that the column headers are intended as the names of the IEs? If so, we recommend rotating the table (so the column headers become the first column) as shown in the edited document. Please review and let us know any updates, or if you want to revert to the previous format. (We note that Table 2 also adds spaces into IE names, perhaps in order get line breaks within the cell; please let us know if you'd like to make any updates to Table 2.) Original (column headers): path Delay Mean Delta Micro.. path Delay Min Delta Micro.. path Delay Max Delta Micro.. Perhaps intended as the IE names: pathDelayMeanDeltaMicroseconds pathDelayMinDeltaMicroseconds pathDelayMaxDeltaMicroseconds --> 18) <!--[rfced] Terminology: Please review usage of these terms and let us know if any updates should be made for consistency. Flow Record (8 instances) vs. flow record (1 instance) Singleton (2 instances) vs. singleton (5 instances) --> 19) <!-- [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. Updates of this nature typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should still be reviewed as a best practice. --> Thank you. Alice Russo RFC Production Center On Mar 30, 2026, [email protected] wrote: > *****IMPORTANT***** > > Updated 2026/03/30 > > 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 > > * [email protected] (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). > > * [email protected], 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, > [email protected] 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/rfc9951.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9951.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9951.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9951.txt > > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9951-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9951-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff of the XML: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9951-xmldiff1.html > > > Tracking progress > ----------------- > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9951 > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > > -------------------------------------- > RFC9951 (draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-23) > > Title : Export of Delay Performance Metrics in IP Flow Information > Export (IPFIX) > Author(s) : T. Graf, B. Claise, A. Huang-Feng > WG Chair(s) : Joe Clarke, Benoît Claise > Area Director(s) : Mohamed Boucadair, Mahesh Jethanandani -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
