Authors,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary)
the following questions, which are also in the source file.
1) <!-- [rfced] Authors' Addresses: We see that Qin Wu's affiliation is
listed as Huawei in this document. Please confirm that this is as desired.
We ask because we see that Qin Wu's affiliation is mostly listed as Huawei
after RFC 9000, but as "Huawei Technologies" in RFCs 9005, 9353, 9358, and
9731. -->
2) <!-- [rfced] Section 1: Please clarify the meaning of this sentence,
especially how the phrase "and other faults" relates to the rest
of the sentence.
Original:
The intention of this document is to focus on those events that have a
negative effect on the network's ability to forward traffic according
to expected behavior and so deliver services, the ability to control
and operate the network, and other faults that reduce the quality or
reliability of the delivered service.
Option A:
The intention of this document is to focus on those events that could
have a negative effect on the network's ability to forward traffic
according to expected behavior and so could negatively affect
delivery of services and the ability to control and operate the
network. Such events could also trigger other faults that would
reduce the quality or reliability of the delivered service.
Option B:
The intention of this document is to focus on those events that have a
negative effect on the network's ability to forward traffic according to
expected behavior and thus its ability to deliver services, provide the
ability to control and operate the network, and manage faults that would
reduce the quality or reliability of the delivered service.
Option C:
This document focuses on events that have a negative effect on
traffic forwarding, service delivery, and network management,
especially when managing faults that reduce the quality or reliability
of the delivered service.
-->
3) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.1:
a) FYI, we capitalized "layer 3, layer 2, and layer 1" to
"Layer 3, Layer 2, and Layer 1", per more common usage in RFCs
after RFC 6000.
b) Is "intent" the only type of service definition (in which case
"i.e.," ("that is") is correct), or should "i.e.," be "e.g.," ("for
example")?
Original:
Network Telemetry: This is defined in [RFC9232] and describes the
process of collecting operational network data categorized
according to the network plane (e.g., layer 3, layer 2, and layer
1) from which it was derived. Data collected through the Network
Telemetry process does not contain any data related to service
definitions (i.e., "intent" per Section 3.1 of [RFC9315]). -->
4) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.1: Should "network monitoring" be "Network Monitoring"
in this paragraph, to match other comparable terms mentioned in Sections
2 and subsequent? Also, we see "through the Network Telemetry process"
in the previous paragraph (i.e., initial capitals applied again after the
term has been defined).
Original:
Network Monitoring: This is the process of keeping a continuous
record of functions related to a network topology. It involves
tracking various aspects such as traffic patterns, device health,
performance metrics, and overall network behaviour. This approach
differentiates network monitoring from resource or device
monitoring, which focuses on individual components or resources
(Section 3.2). -->
5) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.1:
a) Does "and to identify" refer to the Network Observability process
or the analysis of the data?
Original:
Network Observability: This is the process of enabling network
behavioral assessment through analysis of observed operational
network data (logs, alarms, traces, etc.) with the aim of
detecting symptoms of network behavior, and to identify anomalies
and their causes.
Perhaps (the process):
Network Observability: This is the process of enabling network
behavioral assessment through analysis of observed operational
network data (logs, alarms, traces, etc.); this process aims to
detect symptoms of network behavior and to identify anomalies
and their causes.
Or possibly: (the analysis):
Network Observability: This is the process of enabling network
behavioral assessment through analysis of observed operational
network data (logs, alarms, traces, etc.); such analysis aims to
detect symptoms of network behavior and to identify anomalies
and their causes.
b) May we update this sentence as follows to clarify "and that"?
Original:
Network Observability begins with information
gathered using Network Monitoring tools and that may be further
enriched with other operational data.
Perhaps:
Network Observability begins with information
gathered using Network Monitoring tools, then it
may be further enriched with other operational data. -->
6) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.2: For parallelism in the list provided
in this section, we made several updates to the definition
paragraphs (the top-level items). For consistency of style, we went
with sentence fragments instead of complete sentences. Please
review, and let us know any updates. -->
7) <!-- [rfced] Sections 3.2 and 4: We see one instance of "network
system" in Section 3.2 but two instances of "Network system" in
Section 4. Because this term isn't specifically defined anywhere,
may we change the "between Network system and Resources" text in
Section 4 to "between a network system and Resources", and may we
change "Network system" in Figure 1 to "Network System"?
Original:
Resource: An element of a network system.
...
Note that there is a 1:n relationship between Network
system and Resources, and between Resources and Characteristics: this
is not shown on the figure for clarity.
...
Network system -->
8) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.2: For consistency of style, we put
"Resource is a recursive concept" under "Resource:" in a <ul>,
as was done for the rest of the definitions in this section with
nested paragraphs. Please let us know if you prefer otherwise.
Original:
Resource: An element of a network system.
Resource is a recursive concept so that a Resource may be a
collection of other Resources (for example, a network node
comprises a collection of network interfaces).
Currently:
Resource: An element of a network system.
* Resource is a recursive concept so that a Resource may be a
collection of other Resources (for example, a network node
comprises a collection of network interfaces). -->
9) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.2:
a) We see only two instances of single-quoted items in this
document and see double quotes used for all other terms (e.g.,
"Value Change"). May we use double quotes instead for these two
items, i.e., change 'Value' to "Value" and 'variable' to "variable"
here?
b) We see "metric" used in the text of RFC 9417, which uses "Metric"
only in three definitions and its Figure 1. May we lowercase this
term in this document to match RFC 9417, as it's only used as a term
in this one bullet item?
Original:
* A Characteristic may be considered to be built on facts (see
'Value', below) and the contexts and descriptors that identify
and give meaning to the facts.
* The term "Metric" [RFC9417] is another word for a measurable
Characteristic which may also be thought of as analogous to a
'variable'.
Perhaps:
* A Characteristic may be considered to be built on facts (see
"Value", below) and the contexts and descriptors that identify
and give meaning to the facts.
* The term "metric" [RFC9417] is another word for a measurable
Characteristic, which may also be thought of as analogous to a
"variable". -->
10) <!-- [rfced] Sections 3.2 and 4: We see "a count" in Section 3.2 but
"the Count" in Section 4. Should capitalization of this term be made
consistent? If yes, please specify which form is preferred.
Original:
It may be in the form of a categorization (e.g., high
or low), an integer (e.g., a count or gauge), or a reading of a
continuous variable (e.g., an analog measurement), etc.
...
Events may be counted, and the Count may
cross a threshold or reach a Relevant Value. -->
11) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.2: Is the period (of time) always negligible,
or should "i.e.," be "e.g.," here?
Original:
Event: The variation in Value of a Characteristic of a Resource at a
distinct moment in time (i.e., the period is negligible). -->
12) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.2: RFC 8342 uses the lowercase form
"operational state". Because this sentence says "as used in
[RFC8342]", would you prefer to follow usage in RFC 8342 or leave
both "Operational State" and "operational state" as they are in this
paragraph?
Original:
* This term may be contrasted with "Operational State" as used in
[RFC8342]. For example, the state of a link might be up/down/
degraded, but the operational state of link would include a
collection of Values of Characteristics of the link. -->
13) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.2: We had trouble following this sentence.
Should "relative to a specific perspective, intent, ..." be
"relative to a specific perspective, with a view to intent, ..."
per text seen twice in Section 4? If not, what do "relative to a
specific perspective" and "and in relation to other Events ..." refer
to?
Original:
Relevance: Consideration of an Event, State, or Value (through the
application of policy, relative to a specific perspective, intent,
and in relation to other Events, States, and Values) to determine
whether it is of note to the system that controls or manages the
network. -->
14) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.2: Does "and may be perceived" refer to the
Occurrence or the Resources in this sentence? If "Resources", we
suggest inserting "they".
Original:
* An Occurrence may occur at any macro or micro scale because
Resources are a recursive concept, and may be perceived
depending on the scope of observation (i.e., according to the
level of Resource recursion that is examined). That is,
Occurrences, themselves are a recursive concept. -->
15) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.2: We see that
[I-D.ietf-nmop-network-incident-yang] uses (mostly) "network
incident", "customer incident", and "incident management", while
this document uses initial-capitalized forms for these terms.
Would you (perhaps Qin Wu or Nigel Davis, as coauthors of this
document as well as [I-D.ietf-nmop-network-incident-yang]) like to
suggest that the initial-capitalized forms of these terms also be
used in [I-D.ietf-nmop-network-incident-yang]? We see that this
document is listed in the Informative References of that document.
Original:
Incident: A (Network) Incident is an undesired Occurrence such as an
unexpected interruption of a network service, degradation of the
quality of a network service, or the below-target performance of a
network service. An Incident results from one or more Problems,
and a Problem may give rise to or contribute to one or more
Incidents. Greater discussion of Network Incident relationships,
including Customer Incidents and Incident management, can be found
in [I-D.ietf-nmop-network-incident-yang]. -->
16) <!-- [rfced] Section 4: It seems odd that Figure 6 is mentioned before
Figure 2 appears and before any mention of Figure 3. Would you like
to move Figure 6 so that it appears just after Figure 2? It would
then be renumbered as Figure 3, and the rest of the figures would be
renumbered accordingly.
Original:
In practice, the Characteristic may vary in an analog manner over
time as shown on the right-hand side of Figure 2. The Value can be
read or reported (i.e., Detected) periodically leading to analog
Values that may be deemed Relevant Values, or may be evaluated over
time as shown in Figure 6.
( Contents of Figure 2 )
Figure 2: Characteristics and Changes
Figure 3 shows the workflow progress for Events. As noted above, an
Perhaps:
In practice, the Characteristic may vary in an analog manner over
time as shown on the right-hand side of Figure 2. The Value can be
read or reported (i.e., Detected) periodically leading to analog
Values that may be deemed Relevant Values, or it may be evaluated
over time as shown in Figure 3.
( Contents of Figure 2 )
Figure 2: Characteristics and Changes
( Contents of Figure 3 )
Figure 3: Counts, Thresholds, and Values
Figure 4 shows the workflow progress for Events. As noted above, an -->
17) <!-- [rfced] Figures 2 and 6: We see "Change at a time" and "Change
over time" in Figure 2 but "Change at a Time" and "Change over Time"
in Figure 6. Would you like capitalization to be consistent?
If yes, please specify which style is preferred.
If you'd like to title case, may we change "Evaluated over
time" in Figure 6 to "Evaluated over Time"?
Original:
Change at a time Change over time Change over time
...
| Evaluated |
| over time |
...
Change at a Time Change over Time -->
18) <!-- [rfced] Section 4: This sentence does not parse. If the
suggested text is not correct, please clarify.
Original:
An Occurrence may be undesirable (a
Fault) and that can cause an Alert to be generated, may be evidence
of a Problem and could directly indicate a Cause.
Perhaps:
An Occurrence may be undesirable (a
Fault); this can cause an Alert to be generated, may be evidence
of a Problem, and could directly indicate a Cause. -->
19) <!-- [rfced] Section 4: Is there a distinction between
"may be deemed a Problem" and "may indicate a Problem", as
they seem to be very close in meaning. Will this sentence be
clear to readers?
Original:
A Relevant State may be deemed a Problem, or may indicate a
Problem or potential Problem. -->
20) <!-- [rfced] Section 4: Should "Alarmed state" be "Alarm State" here? We
ask
because we see "an Alarm signifies an undesirable" State" in Section 3.2.
Original:
An Alarm may be raised as the result of a Problem, and the transition
to an Alarmed state may give rise to an Alert. -->
21) <!-- [rfced] Section 4:
a) We see "threshold" but "Threshold Process" in these two
paragraphs. Because "threshold" is not a term defined in this
document, we suggest the lowercase form "threshold process" in
the text, but please advise.
Original:
Figure 6 shows how thresholds are important in the consideration of
analog Values and Events. The arrows in the figure show how one item
may give rise to or utilize another. The use of threshold-driven
Events and States (and the Alerts that they might give rise to) must
be treated with caution to dampen any "flapping" (so that consistent
States may be observed) and to avoid overwhelming management
processes or systems. Analog Values may be read or notified from the
Resource and could transition a threshold, be deemed Relevant Values,
or evaluated over time. Events may be counted, and the Count may
cross a threshold or reach a Relevant Value.
The Threshold Process may be implementation-specific and subject to
policies. When a threshold is crossed and any other conditions are
matched, an Event may be determined, and treated like any other
Event.
b) We had trouble following the purpose of the comma after
"determined" here. We removed it, per "Specific Changes in Value may
be noticed at a specific time (as digital Changes), Detected, and
treated as Events" seen earlier in this section. If this is
incorrect, please clarify what "may" refers to in this sentence.
Also, should "conditions" be "Conditions" here, as we see "give rise
to Conditions that are States" in the second paragraph after
Figure 1?
Original:
When a threshold is crossed and any other conditions are
matched, an Event may be determined, and treated like any other
Event.
Currently (guessing "may be treated" as opposed to "will be treated"
or otherwise):
When a threshold is crossed and any other conditions are
matched, an Event may be determined and may be treated like any other
Event. -->
22) <!-- [rfced] Acknowledgments: Should Dirk Hugo be listed here as "Dirk Von
Hugo"? We ask because we see a "Dirk Von Hugo" listed in several post-6000 RFCs
but not a "Dirk Hugo". Also, we see "Dirk Von Hugo" on
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/person/[email protected]>.
Original: The authors would like to thank Med Boucadair, Wanting Du, Joe Clarke,
Javier Antich, Benoit Claise, Christopher Janz, Sherif Mostafa, Kristian
Larsson, Dirk Hugo, Carsten Bormann, Hilarie Orman, Stewart Bryant, Bo Wu, Paul
Kyzivat, Jouni Korhonen, Reshad Rahman, Rob Wilton, Mahesh Jethanandani, Tim
Bray, Paul Aitken, and Deb Cooley for their helpful comments. -->
23) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the
online Style Guide at
<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 Feb 23, 2026, [email protected] wrote:
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2026/02/23
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
* [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/rfc9940.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9940.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9940.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9940.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9940-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9940-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9940-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9940
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC9940 (draft-ietf-nmop-terminology-23)
Title : Some Key Terms for Network Fault and Problem Management
Author(s) : N. Davis, Ed., A. Farrel, Ed., T. Graf, Q. Wu, C. Yu
WG Chair(s) : Benoît Claise, Reshad Rahman
Area Director(s) : Mohamed Boucadair, Mahesh Jethanandani
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
