Michael, Thank you for sending along the files updated with the capitalization guidance in response to our cluster-wide query. We have adopted these files and posted them below. Note that we have made no changes to the file submitted.
Please review the files carefully as we do not make changes after publication. The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623.xml The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623-diff.html (comprehensive diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes only) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623-lastdiff.html (last to current version only) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623-lastrfcdiff.html (ditto but rfcdiff) Please contact us with any further updates/questions/comments you may have. We will await approvals from each of the parties listed on the AUTH48 status page prior to moving forward to publication. The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9623 Thank you. RFC Editor/mf > On Dec 13, 2024, at 10:34 AM, Tommy Pauly <tpa...@apple.com> wrote: > > Thanks Megan! I approve this latest version of RFC 9623. > > Best, > Tommy > >> On Dec 12, 2024, at 1:13 PM, Megan Ferguson <mfergu...@amsl.com> wrote: >> >> Michael, >> >> Thank you for sending along the files. We have synced our files with those >> you submitted (including making sure the updates that may have come in while >> you were working appear as expected). >> >> Please review the files carefully as we do not make changes after >> publication. >> >> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623.txt >> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623.txt> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623.pdf >> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623.pdf> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623.html >> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623.html> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623.xml >> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623.xml> >> >> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623-diff.html >> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623-diff.html> (comprehensive diff) >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623-auth48diff.html >> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623-auth48diff.html> (AUTH48 changes >> only) >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623-lastdiff.html >> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623-lastdiff.html> (last to current >> version only) >> >> Please contact us with any further updates/questions/comments you may have. >> >> We will await approvals from each of the parties listed on the AUTH48 status >> page prior to moving forward to publication. >> >> The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: >> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc >> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc>9623 >> >> Thank you. >> >> RFC Editor/mf >> >>> On Dec 9, 2024, at 6:31 PM, Reese Enghardt <i...@tenghardt.net >>> <mailto:i...@tenghardt.net>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Megan, >>> >>> Thank you, looks good to me now. I agree with all the changes. >>> >>> Best, >>> Reese >>> >>> >>> On 12/9/24 09:40, Megan Ferguson wrote: >>>> Hi Reese (and Michael), >>>> >>>> Thanks for pointing these out. We have updated as requested. >>>> >>>> Two notes: >>>> >>>> 1) FYI: We did a little digging for the strange break in “implementation”; >>>> it seems to be related to this issue >>>> (https://github.com/ietf-tools/xml2rfc/issues/532 >>>> <https://github.com/ietf-tools/xml2rfc/issues/532>). We ended up updating >>>> the list to start the description on a new line, which might actually be >>>> preferable due to the length of the lead-in text. >>>> >>>> 2) We have updated to use the closed compound multistream in this document >>>> per Michael’s response to the cluster-wide questions. >>>> >>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623.txt >>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623.txt> >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623.pdf >>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623.pdf> >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623.html >>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623.html> >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623.xml >>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623.xml> >>>> >>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623-diff.html >>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623-diff.html> (comprehensive diff) >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623-auth48diff.html >>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623-auth48diff.html> (AUTH48 >>>> changes only) >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623-lastdiff.html >>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623-lastdiff.html> (last version >>>> to this) >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623-lastrfcdiff.html >>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623-lastrfcdiff.html> (last to >>>> this rfcdiff) >>>> >>>> Please contact us with any further updates/questions/comments you may have. >>>> >>>> We will await approvals from each of the parties listed on the AUTH48 >>>> status page prior to moving forward to publication. >>>> >>>> The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: >>>> >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9623 >>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9623> >>>> >>>> Thank you. >>>> >>>> RFC Editor/mf >>>> >>>>> On Dec 9, 2024, at 6:08 AM, Michael Welzl <mich...@ifi.uio.no> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I just wanted to state that I agree with all of these changes: the >>>>> updates by the RFC Editor are all fine, and I also agree with what Reese >>>>> says below. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Michael >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Dec 6, 2024, at 10:56 PM, Reese Enghardt <i...@tenghardt.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you Michael for the replies and the spotted issues, and thank you >>>>>> Megan and the RFC Editor for the excellent editing work! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Reading through the diff just now, the following bits stood out to me: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Section 4.1.3: >>>>>> >>>>>> Just wanting to make sure it doesn't get lost, as it looked like the >>>>>> other changes were incorporated: I still see the split of the word >>>>>> implementation that Michael flagged, both in the diff and the most >>>>>> recent .txt file, even after a "force refresh" in my browser. The word >>>>>> looks as expected in the html though. >>>>>> >>>>>> OLD: >>>>>> >>>>>> "Capacity Profile" (property name connCapacityProfile): An implement >>>>>> ation can use the capacity profile to prefer paths that match an >>>>>> application's expected traffic profile. >>>>>> >>>>>> NEW: >>>>>> >>>>>> "Capacity Profile" (property name connCapacityProfile): An >>>>>> implementation can use the capacity profile to prefer paths that >>>>>> match an application's expected traffic profile. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Section 9.2: >>>>>> >>>>>> I think "battery level" doesn't need to be hyphenated here. >>>>>> >>>>>> OLD: >>>>>> >>>>>> This could for instance be signal strength information reported by radio >>>>>> modems like Wi-Fi and mobile broadband or information about the >>>>>> battery-level of the device. >>>>>> >>>>>> NEW: >>>>>> >>>>>> This could for instance be signal strength information reported by radio >>>>>> modems like Wi-Fi and mobile broadband or information about the battery >>>>>> level of the device. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Authors' Addresses: >>>>>> >>>>>> It appears that "California" was changed to "CA" once, but changed from >>>>>> "CA" to "California" in another address. Perhaps these should all be >>>>>> made consistent, I have no strong opinions on which one to use, but >>>>>> perhaps "CA" as it's shorter. >>>>>> >>>>>> I saw a similar inconsistency in the Author's Addresses section of >>>>>> draft-ietf-taps-interface, while draft-ietf-taps-arch only has "CA". >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Reese >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 12/5/24 10:49, Megan Ferguson wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Michael, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you for your reply and guidance to our questions as well as >>>>>>> spotting the other issues. We have updated as requested in your last >>>>>>> two mails. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please review the files carefully as we do not make changes after >>>>>>> publication. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623.txt >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623.pdf >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623.html >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623.xml >>>>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623-diff.html (comprehensive >>>>>>> diff) >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 >>>>>>> changes only) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please contact us with any further updates/questions/comments you may >>>>>>> have. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We will await approvals from each of the parties listed on the AUTH48 >>>>>>> status page prior to moving forward to publication. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9623 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> RFC Editor/mf >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Dec 5, 2024, at 6:05 AM, Michael Welzl <mich...@ifi.uio.no> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Complementing yesterday’s email in which I sent answers to the >>>>>>>> questions, here is a short list of changes - just a few small issues >>>>>>>> that I found when reading the diff. >>>>>>>> As always, many, many thanks to the RFC Editor staff for their great >>>>>>>> work with this! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Below, “MW:” indicates a explanation / comment line from me. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ======= >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> MW: I think this “an” should become “a” due to acronym expansion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Section 2: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> OLD: >>>>>>>> Once the Connection is established, the Transport Services >>>>>>>> Implementation maps actions and events to the details of the chosen >>>>>>>> Protocol Stack. For example, the same Connection object may >>>>>>>> ultimately represent a single transport protocol instance (e.g., a >>>>>>>> TCP connection, a TLS session over TCP, a UDP flow with fully >>>>>>>> specified Local and Remote Endpoint Identifiers, a DTLS session, an >>>>>>>> Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) stream, a QUIC stream, or >>>>>>>> an HTTP/2 stream). The Connection Properties held by a Connection or >>>>>>>> Listener are independent of other Connections that are not part of >>>>>>>> the same Connection Group. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> NEW: >>>>>>>> Once the Connection is established, the Transport Services >>>>>>>> Implementation maps actions and events to the details of the chosen >>>>>>>> Protocol Stack. For example, the same Connection object may >>>>>>>> ultimately represent a single transport protocol instance (e.g., a >>>>>>>> TCP connection, a TLS session over TCP, a UDP flow with fully >>>>>>>> specified Local and Remote Endpoint Identifiers, a DTLS session, a >>>>>>>> Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) stream, a QUIC stream, or >>>>>>>> an HTTP/2 stream). The Connection Properties held by a Connection or >>>>>>>> Listener are independent of other Connections that are not part of >>>>>>>> the same Connection Group. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> MW: I *believe* “have” should be “has” after “each of which”, but I’m >>>>>>>> unsure (I’m not a native speaker). As Spencer Dawkins would say: >>>>>>>> “please do the right thing” :-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Section 3.1: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> OLD: >>>>>>>> The Transport Services system should have a list of supported >>>>>>>> protocols available, each of which have transport features reflecting >>>>>>>> the capabilities of the protocol. Once an application specifies its >>>>>>>> Transport Properties, the Transport Services system matches the >>>>>>>> required and prohibited properties against the transport features of >>>>>>>> the available protocols (see Section 6.2 of [RFC9622] for the >>>>>>>> definition of property preferences). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> NEW: >>>>>>>> The Transport Services system should have a list of supported >>>>>>>> protocols available, each of which has transport features reflecting >>>>>>>> the capabilities of the protocol. Once an application specifies its >>>>>>>> Transport Properties, the Transport Services system matches the >>>>>>>> required and prohibited properties against the transport features of >>>>>>>> the available protocols (see Section 6.2 of [RFC9622] for the >>>>>>>> definition of property preferences). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> MW: it seems a wrong line break happened here in the middle of the >>>>>>>> word “implementation”. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Section 4.1.3: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> OLD: >>>>>>>> "Capacity Profile" (property name connCapacityProfile): An implement >>>>>>>> ation can use the capacity profile to prefer paths that match an >>>>>>>> application's expected traffic profile. This match will use >>>>>>>> cached performance estimates; see Section 9.2. Some examples of >>>>>>>> path preferences based on capacity profiles include: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> NEW: >>>>>>>> "Capacity Profile" (property name connCapacityProfile): An >>>>>>>> implementation can use the capacity profile to prefer paths that >>>>>>>> match >>>>>>>> an application's expected traffic profile. This match will use >>>>>>>> cached performance estimates; see Section 9.2. Some examples of >>>>>>>> path preferences based on capacity profiles include: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> MW: Section 5.1.1: I see that you capitalized the first word after >>>>>>>> each list item here (e.g., “when” became “When” after “msgOrdered:”). >>>>>>>> However, this seems inconsistent: both after “msgLifetime:” and >>>>>>>> “msgPriority:”, “this” should probably become “This” for consistency. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> OLD: >>>>>>>> msgLifetime: this should be implemented by removing the Message from >>>>>>>> the queue of pending Messages after the Lifetime has expired. A >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> NEW: >>>>>>>> msgLifetime: This should be implemented by removing the Message from >>>>>>>> the queue of pending Messages after the Lifetime has expired. A >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> OLD: >>>>>>>> msgPriority: this represents the ability to prioritize a Message >>>>>>>> over other Messages. This can be implemented by the Transport >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> NEW: >>>>>>>> msgPriority: This represents the ability to prioritize a Message >>>>>>>> over other Messages. This can be implemented by the Transport >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> Michael >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 25 Nov 2024, at 17:08, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *****IMPORTANT***** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Updated 2024/11/25 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * rfc-edi...@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, 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, >>>>>>>>> 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/rfc9623.xml >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623.html >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623.pdf >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623.txt >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Diff file of the text: >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623-diff.html >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Diff of the XML: >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623-xmldiff1.html >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Tracking progress >>>>>>>>> ----------------- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9623 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thank you for your cooperation, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> RFC Editor >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> RFC9623 (draft-ietf-taps-impl-18) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Title : Implementing Interfaces to Transport Services >>>>>>>>> Author(s) : A. Brunstrom, Ed., T. Pauly, Ed., R. Enghardt, P. >>>>>>>>> Tiesel, M. Welzl >>>>>>>>> WG Chair(s) : Reese Enghardt, Aaron Falk >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Area Director(s) : Zaheduzzaman Sarker, Francesca Palombini >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
