Dear RFC Editor,
Thank you for your efforts.
Please see inline my responses with [XM]>>>.
Original
From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>
To: chengweiqi...@chinamobile.com
<chengweiqi...@chinamobile.com>;肖敏10093570;zhoutian...@huawei.com
<zhoutian...@huawei.com>;d...@fiberhome.com
<d...@fiberhome.com>;yoav.pe...@broadcom.com <yoav.pe...@broadcom.com>;
Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>;mpls-...@ietf.org
<mpls-...@ietf.org>;mpls-cha...@ietf.org <mpls-cha...@ietf.org>;tony...@tony.li
<tony...@tony.li>;james.n.guich...@futurewei.com
<james.n.guich...@futurewei.com>;auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
<auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>;
Date: 2025年01月03日 10:13
Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9714
<draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-18> for your review
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. -->
[XM]>>> Flow-ID Label Indicator, Flow-ID Label.
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.
-->
[XM]>>> OK.
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:
-->
[XM]>>> OK.
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.
-->
[XM]>>> OK.
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
[XM]>>> OK.
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].
[XM]>>> OK.
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
[XM]>>> OK.
-->
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.
-->
[XM]>>> Thank you for the reminder. I didn't find any changes needed.
Best Regards,
Xiao Min
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
