Authors,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML 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] The following is somewhat tough to parse. May we update as follows? Otherwise, please clarify. Original: That means the MNA encapsulation is expected to provide a more advanced solution, when published as an RFC and it is agreed that this document will be made Historic at that time. Perhaps: That means the MNA encapsulation is expected to provide a more advanced solution. Once published as an RFC, it is agreed that this document will be made Historic. --> 3) <!-- [rfced] For readability, we have updated the sentence below. Please let us know if updates are needed. Original: To achieve the purpose of coloring the MPLS traffic, and to distinguish between hop-by-hop measurement and edge-to-edge measurement, the TC for the FL is defined as follows: Current: To color the MPLS traffic and to distinguish between hop-by-hop measurement and edge- to-edge measurement, the TC for the FL is defined as follows: --> 4) <!-- [rfced] "perform some deep labels inspection beyond the label" reads oddly. Please review. Original: Note that while looking up the Flow-ID label, the transit node needs to perform some deep labels inspection beyond the label (at the top of the label stack) used to make forwarding decisions. Perhaps: Note that while looking up the Flow-ID label, the transit node needs to inspect beyond the label at the top of the label stack used to make forwarding decisions. --> 5) <!-- [rfced] Note the following regarding terminology: A) The following term appears with inconsistent capitalization. Perhaps FL can be used throughout once the abbreviated form is introduced? This avoids the capitalization issue. Flow-ID Label vs Flow-ID label B) "ECMP" is only used in connection with its expanded form. Perhaps the abbreviated form does not need to be introduced/used in this document? Originals from - Section 2.1: ECMP: Equal-Cost Multipath - Section 7: Analogous to what's described in Section 5 of [RFC8957], under conditions of Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP), the introduction of the FL may lead to the same problem as caused by the Synonymous Flow Label (SFL) [RFC8957]. C) We updated the capitalization as follows for consistency with RFC 9341. Please let us know if you disagree. Alternate-Marking method -> Alternate-Marking Method --> 6) <!-- [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. RFC Editor On Jan 2, 2025, at 6:09 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/01/02 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/rfc9714.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9714 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC9714 (draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-18) Title : Encapsulation For MPLS Performance Measurement with Alternate-Marking Method Author(s) : W. Cheng, X. Min, T. Zhou, J. Dai, Y. Peleg WG Chair(s) : Nicolai Leymann, Tarek Saad, Tony Li Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, John Scudder, Gunter Van de Velde -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
