Authors, As we prepare your document [1] for publication, we have additional questions regarding this text.
Section 1: Note that in parallel to the work of this document, there is ongoing work on MPLS Network Actions (MNAs) [RFC9613]. The MPLS performance measurement with the Alternate-Marking Method can also be achieved by MNA encapsulation. In addition, MNA will provide a broader use-case applicability. 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. Please clarify this paragraph, specifically: a) Does "ongoing work" refer to draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk [2] or RFC 9613? The latter seems odd to refer to as "ongoing work". We note that until version 17 [3], this sentence cited draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk rather than RFC 9613 (which was draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements): Note that in parallel to the work of this document, there is ongoing work on MPLS Network Actions (MNA) [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk]. b) Does "Once published as an RFC" refer to the "ongoing work"? Depending on your answer above, perhaps "Once [MNA-FRAMEWORK] is published as an RFC". c) Regarding "this document will be made Historic", is it accurate that you are assuming there will be a Status Change for the present document (RFC 9714)? If so, then perhaps it's more clear to say "the status of this RFC will be reviewed and possibly changed to Historic"? [1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714.txt [and html and pdf] [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk/ (in the RFC Editor queue in EDIT state) [3] https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-17.txt Thank you. RFC Editor/ar -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
