Hi Haomian, Thank you for your reply. We have marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9730).
We will assume your assent to any further changes submitted by your coauthors unless we hear objection at that time. We will await approvals from each of the parties listed at the AUTH48 status page prior to moving this document forward in the publication process. Thank you, RFC Editor/st > On Feb 6, 2025, at 1:58 AM, Zhenghaomian <zhenghaom...@huawei.com> wrote: > > Dear RFC editors, > > Thank you for the work, I reviewed the changes and approve the publication. > > Best wishes, > Haomian > > -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: Sarah Tarrant <starr...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > 发送时间: 2025年2月6日 4:38 > 收件人: Zhenghaomian <zhenghaom...@huawei.com> > 抄送: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org; xuyun...@caict.ac.cn; > zhaoyang...@chinamobile.com; dieter.bel...@nokia.com; Linyi (Yi) > <yi....@huawei.com>; teas-...@ietf.org; teas-cha...@ietf.org; > vbee...@juniper.net; james.n.guich...@futurewei.com; > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > 主题: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9730 > <draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-controller-inter-work-17> for your review > > Hi Haomian, > > Thank you for your reply. We have updated the document accordingly > > Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make > changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any further > updates or with your approval of the document in its current form. We will > await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the publication > process. > > The updated files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9730.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9730.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9730.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9730.xml > > The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9730-diff.html (comprehensive diff) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9730-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes > only) > > Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the > most recent version. > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9730 > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/st > >> On Feb 5, 2025, at 3:20 AM, Zhenghaomian >> <zhenghaomian=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >> >> Dear RFC Editors, >> >> Just back from Chinese spring festival, thank you for the work, please see >> the responses inline. Could you please help integrate it into the XML? >> >> Best wishes, >> Haomian (on behalf of authors & contributors) >> >> -----邮件原件----- >> 发件人: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> >> 发送时间: 2025年1月30日 7:08 >> 收件人: Zhenghaomian <zhenghaom...@huawei.com>; xuyun...@caict.ac.cn; >> zhaoyang...@chinamobile.com; dieter.bel...@nokia.com; Linyi (Yi) >> <yi....@huawei.com> >> 抄送: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org; teas-...@ietf.org; >> teas-cha...@ietf.org; vbee...@juniper.net; >> james.n.guich...@futurewei.com; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org >> 主题: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9730 >> <draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-controller-inter-work-17> 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. --> [Haomian] >> please help adding keywords: architecture, ACTN, control plane. >> >> 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 >> --> >> [Haomian] Yes, please remove the 'protocol'. >> >> 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]. >> --> >> [Haomian] if we look at the figure 1, NETCONF/YANG ("/" means "and" here) is >> one option while PCEP is another, but the proposal text seems there are 3 >> options. How about following? >> NEW >> 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] with YANG [RFC7950] data model, 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... >> --> >> [Haomian] Yes this is more clear. >> >> 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. >> --> >> [Haomian] The YANG module to be used depends on the network switching >> technology, I think the proposed text this is more clear, but I prefer to >> make it plural. >> NEW: >> 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 topology-related YANG modules and specific >> technology-related extensions. >> >> 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 >> --> >> [Haomian] I am good with the change. >> >> 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. >> --> >> [Haomian] I am good with the change. >> >> 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]. >> --> >> [Haomian] I see [YANG-TE] removed the original 3.3.2 about "Tunnel >> hierarchical link endpoint", so I would propose to remove the last sentence >> and citation. >> >> 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>. >> --> >> [Haomian] I am good with the change. >> >> 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) >> --> >> [Haomian] Yes these are correct. >> >> 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")? >> --> >> [Haomian] I am good with all the 3 changes above. >> >> 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. >> --> >> [Haomian] I am not an expert on inclusive language, and I did not find >> anything need to be updated after checking the guideline. >> Regarding 'Man in the Middle', see >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-in-the-middle_attack and I don't think we >> can change the term so I personally prefer to keep it. If really matters, I >> am also fine to remove it from the sentence. >> >> >> 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-4Q9l2USxI >> Ae6P8O4Zc >> >> * 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
