Hi Alice,
The NEW text looks good to me.
Cheers,
Xiao Min
Original
From: AliceRusso <aru...@staff.rfc-editor.org>
To: 肖敏10093570;
Cc: 程伟强 <chengweiqi...@chinamobile.com>;zhoutian...@huawei.com
<zhoutian...@huawei.com>;戴锦友 <d...@fiberhome.com>;yoav.peleg
<yoav.pe...@broadcom.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-ed
<auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>;RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>;
Date: 2025年02月07日 02:16
Subject: Re: question - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9714
<draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-18> for your review
Xiao Min,
Thank you for your reply. Please review whether the NEW text (based on your
reply) is accurate. To view it in context, please see the files listed below.
ORIGINAL (the approved I-D):
Note that in parallel to the work of this document, there is ongoing
work on MPLS Network Actions (MNA) [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, when published as an RFC and it is
agreed that this document will be made Historic at that time.
NEW:
Note that in parallel to the work of this document, there is ongoing
work, e.g., [MNA-PM-with-AMM], regarding 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. If [MNA-PM-with-AMM] is published as an RFC, the status of
this RFC will be reviewed and possibly changed to Historic.
Added informative reference
[MNA-PM-with-AMM]
Cheng, W., Min, X., Gandhi, R., and G. Mirsky, "MNA for
Performance Measurement with Alternate Marking Method",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-cx-mpls-mna-
inband-pm-05, 21 October 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-cx-mpls-mna-
inband-pm-05>.
Files available:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714.txt
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of only the most recent changes:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714-lastdiff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side)
Thank you.
RFC Editor/ar
> On Feb 6, 2025, at 12:02 AM, xiao.m...@zte.com.cn wrote:
>
> Hi Alice,
>
>
>
> Thank you for the questions.
>
> Please see inline.
>
> Original
> From: AliceRusso <aru...@staff.rfc-editor.org>
> To: 程伟强 <chengweiqi...@chinamobile.com>;肖敏10093570;zhoutian...@huawei.com
> <zhoutian...@huawei.com>;戴锦友 <d...@fiberhome.com>;yoav.peleg
> <yoav.pe...@broadcom.com>;
> Cc: 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
> <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>;RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>;
> Date: 2025年02月06日 11:13
> Subject: question - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9714
> <draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-18> for your review
> 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].
> [XM]>>> No. The "ongoing work" refers to MNA encapsulation for MPLS PM with
> AMM (e.g., draft-cx-mpls-mna-inband-pm) , neither draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk nor
> RFC 9613. Here the reference to RFC 9613 or draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk is used
> to clarify what's MNA.
>
>
>
> 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".
> [XM]>>> Yes. However, as I said above, the "ongoing work" is neither
> [MNA-FRAMEWORK] nor [MNA-REQUIREMENTS].
>
>
>
> 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"?
> [XM]>>> Yes. I agree the new text you wrote is more clear.
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Xiao Min
>
>
>
> [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
