Tianran and Jinyou Dai, Tianran, thank you for your review. We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 page <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9714>.
Jinyou Dai, please review the RFC at the links below: > 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 let us know if any updates are needed or if you approve the RFC for publication. We will wait to hear from you before continuing with the process. Thank you, RFC Editor/sg > On Jan 14, 2025, at 4:49 AM, Tianran Zhou > <zhoutianran=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > I approve. > > Cheers, > Tianran > > > > > > Sent from WeLink > 发件人： Weiqiang Cheng<chengweiqi...@chinamobile.com> > 收件人： yoav.peleg<yoav.pe...@broadcom.com>;sginoza<sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > 抄送： rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org;Tianran > Zhou<zhoutian...@huawei.com>;djy<d...@fiberhome.com>;mpls-ads<mpls-...@ietf.org>;mpls-chairs<mpls-cha...@ietf.org>;Tony > > Li<tony...@tony.li>;james.n.guichard<james.n.guich...@futurewei.com>;auth48archive@rfc-editor.org;xiao.min2<xiao.m...@zte.com.cn> > 主题： Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9714 for your review > 时间： 2025-01-13 09:49:37 > > Hi Sandy, > > I approve. > > Thanks, > Weiqiang Cheng > > From: Yoav Peleg > Date: 2025-01-12 15:29 > To: sginoza > CC: rfc-editor; chengweiqiang; zhoutianran; djy; mpls-ads; mpls-chairs; > tony.li; james.n.guichard; auth48archive; xiao.min2 > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9714 > <draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-18> for your review > Hi, > > I approve. > > THX, > > Yoav Peleg > > > On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 8:03 AM <xiao.m...@zte.com.cn> wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > This electronic communication and the information and any files transmitted > with it, or attached to it, are confidential and are intended solely for the > use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain > information that is confidential, legally privileged, protected by privacy > laws, or otherwise restricted from disclosure to anyone else. If you are not > the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to > the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, copying, > distributing, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail > is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please return > the e-mail to the sender, delete it from your computer, and destroy any > printed copy of it. -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
