Jim, As AD, please review and let us know if you approve the change in Section 1 detailed below.
Thank you. RFC Editor/ar On Feb 6, 2025, at 10:16 AM, Alice Russo <aru...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > 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
