Hi Sandy,
I approve.
Thanks,
Xiao Min
Original
From: SandyGinoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org>
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09日 09:31
Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9714
<draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-18> for your review
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
