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] To make a 1:1 matchup between the acronyms and their expansions, may we remove "protocol" from the definitions below? Original: IS-IS Intermediate System to Intermediate System protocol ... OSPF Open Shortest Path First protocol Perhaps: IS-IS: Intermediate System to Intermediate System ... OSPF: Open Shortest Path First --> 3) <!-- [rfced] To match Section 3.2, may we add a reference to RFC 7950 after "YANG" in the following sentence in Section 3.3? Additionally, as "/" can mean "and", "or", or "and/or", may we update the text for clarity? Current: For domain 1, the network elements were not enabled with GMPLS so the control is purely from the controller, via Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) [RFC6241] / YANG and/or PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440]. Perhaps: For domain 1, the network elements were not enabled with GMPLS, so the control is purely from the controller, via Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) [RFC6241], YANG [RFC7950], and/or PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440]. --> 4) <!--[rfced] To clarify "label inter-domain information", may we update the text as follows? Original: Once the orchestrator(MD) has computed the E2E path, RSVP-TE or PCEP can be used in the different domains to set up the related segment tunnel consisting of label inter-domain information... Perhaps: Once the orchestrator(MD) has computed the E2E path, RSVP-TE or PCEP can be used in the different domains to set up the related segment tunnel consisting of information about inter-domain labels... --> 5) <!--[rfced] In the following sentence, is the intention that any topology-related YANG module can be used? Or should a specific topology-related YANG module be cited here? Original: If the resources of inter-domain links are managed by the orchestrator(MD), each domain controller can provide to the orchestrator(MD) the list of available labels (e.g. timeslots if OTN is the scenario) using the IETF Topology YANG model and related technology specific extension. Perhaps: If the resources of inter-domain links are managed by the Orchestrator(MD), each domain controller can provide to the Orchestrator(MD) the list of available labels (e.g., time slots if the OTN is the scenario) using a topology-related YANG module and a specific technology-related extension. --> 6) <!-- [rfced] Table 1: Note that we converted the text table into <table> format. It seems the notes related to the dotted boxes (in the original text table) appear in the bulleted list after the table. We have updated the table and notes slightly to fit with the updated <table> format. Please review and let us know if any corrections are needed. In addition, may we remove "(Not applicable)" from the table header, as it seems redundant with the text that follows? Current: Single PCE (Not applicable) Perhaps: Single PCE --> 7) <!--[rfced] To improve readability, may we update this sentence as follows? Original: These two models are still possible to be used, although they are not the main methods. Perhaps: It is still possible to use these two models, although they are not the main methods. --> 8) <!-- [rfced] It appears that [YANG-TE] (draft-ietf-teas-yang-te) does not have a Section 3.3.2. Please review and let us know how this citation should be updated. Current: The Orchestrator(ML) is responsible to decide the creation of H-LSP in the lower-layer network if it acts as a VNTM. Then it requests the L-Controller to create the H-LSP via, for example, MPI interface under the ACTN architecture. See Section 3.3.2 of [YANG-TE]. --> 9) <!-- [rfced] FYI - For reference [G.808.1], we added the URL: https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.808.1-201405-I/en. Please let us know if there is any objection. Original: [G.808.1] ITU-T, "Generic protection switching - Linear trail and subnetwork protection", G.808.1, May 2014. Current: [G.808.1] ITU-T, "Generic protection switching - Linear trail and subnetwork protection", ITU-T Recommendation G.808.1, May 2014, <https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.808.1-201405-I/en>. --> 10) <!--[rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for the following abbreviations per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. Link State Advertisement (LSA) Representational State Transfer (REST) --> 11) <!-- [rfced] Terminology a) We have received guidance from Benoit Claise and the YANG Doctors that "YANG module" and "YANG data model" are preferred. We have updated the text to use these forms. Please review. b) Should instances of "LMP protocol" be updated to simply read "LMP" to avoid redundancy (if expanded, "LMP protocol" would read "Link Management Protocol protocol")? c) Similarly, should instances of "MPI interface" be updated to simply read "MPI" (if expanded, "MPI interface" would read "MDSC to PNC Interface interface")? --> 12) <!-- [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. For example, please consider whether "Man in the Middle" should be updated. --> Thank you. RFC Editor/st/ap On Jan 29, 2025, at 3:06 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/01/29 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/rfc9730.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9730.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9730.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9730.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9730-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9730-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9730-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9730 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC9730 (draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-controller-inter-work-17) Title : Interworking of GMPLS Control and Centralized Controller Systems Author(s) : H. Zheng, Y. Xu, Y. Zhao, D. Beller, Y. Lin WG Chair(s) : Oscar Gonzalez de Dios, Vishnu Pavan Beeram, Lou Berger 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
