Hi David,

Thank you for your review and reply.  We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 
page <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9714>.  We will continue with the 
publication process shortly.

Thank you,
RFC Editor/sg


> On Feb 5, 2025, at 1:27 AM, 戴锦友 <d...@fiberhome.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Sandy,
> I approve.
> Sorry to be late for the long holiday in China!
> Thank you very much!
> Best regards!
> 
> David Dai
> Fiberhome Technologies/CICT
> Addr: Gaoxin Road 6#, Wuhan, Hubei, China
> Tel:  +86 27-87693442-8318
> MObile: +86 15377065812
> Fax:  +86 27-87693784
> E-mail: d...@fiberhome.com
>  
> From: Sandy Ginoza
> Date: 2025-01-22 01:46
> To: Tianran Zhou
> CC: Weiqiang Cheng; yoav.peleg; RFC Editor; 戴锦友; mpls-ads; mpls-chairs; Tony 
> Li; james.n.guichard; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org; xiao.min2
> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9714 
> <draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-18> for your review
> 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

Reply via email to