Hi Xiao Min, We have updated the document as suggested below (good catches) and posted the files here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714.html
Diffs of recent updates only: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714-lastdiff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) AUTH48 diffs: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714-auth48diff.html Comprehensive diffs: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Please review and let us know if any additional changes are needed or if you approve the RFC for publication. Thank you, RFC Editor/sg > On Jan 6, 2025, at 11:52 PM, <xiao.m...@zte.com.cn> <xiao.m...@zte.com.cn> > wrote: > > Hi Sandy, > > > > Thank you for the updates. > > Please see inline with [XM]>>>. > > Original > From: SandyGinoza <sgin...@amsl.com> > To: 肖敏10093570; > Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>;chengweiqi...@chinamobile.com > <chengweiqi...@chinamobile.com>;zhoutian...@huawei.com<zhoutian...@huawei.com>;d...@fiberhome.com > <d...@fiberhome.com>;yoav.pe...@broadcom.com > <yoav.pe...@broadcom.com>;mpls-...@ietf.org <mpls-...@ietf.org>;MPLS Working > Chairs <mpls-cha...@ietf.org>;Tony Li <tony...@tony.li>;James Guichard > <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com>;auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>; > Date: 2025年01月07日 10:26 > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9714 > <draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-18> for your review > Hi Xiao Min, > > Thank you for your review. We have updated the document as described below > and posted the revised files here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714.html > > AUTH48 diff (shows only changes since the doc entered AUTH48): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714-auth48diff.html > > Comprehensive diffs: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714-alt-diff.html > > > Note: I updated the text to use “FL” except in the following: > - section titles > - figures > - when part of another expansion (e.g., Flow-ID Label Indicator (FLI)) > [XM]>>> In Section 8, there is one nit and I suggest one more minor change. > > s/a FL/an FL. > > Similar to use "FL" for Flow-ID Label, I suggest to use "FLI" for Flow-ID > Label Indicator. > > > > Cheers, > > Xiao Min > > > > Please review and let us know if any additional updates are needed or if you > approve the RFC for publication. We will wait to hear from you and your > coauthors. > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/sg > > > > On Jan 5, 2025, at 6:08 PM, xiao.m...@zte.com.cn wrote: > > > > 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
