Jim (as AD), Tony (as WG chair), Re: Section 1 of https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714.txt (details below).
Jim wrote: > Yes, a separate status change would need to take place. By agreed it means > the WG agreed to it and the expectation is that at some point in the future > it will become historic and that will be once MNA becomes an RFC. Is the following text accurate? We'd like to avoid confusion that the decision is already complete (i.e., without a status change expected or needed) that RFC 9714 would be moved to Historic when [MNA-PM-with-AMM] is published. 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. The MPLS Working Group expects that this RFC will be changed to Historic once [MNA-PM-with-AMM] is published as an RFC. Thank you. RFC Editor/ar > On Feb 7, 2025, at 9:52 AM, James Guichard <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com> > wrote: > > Further, I would like for the mpls-chairs to confirm my > understanding/recollection of that text. Tony? > > Jim > On Feb 7, 2025, at 10:38 AM, Alice Russo <aru...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > Hi Jim, > > Thanks for your reply. For clarity, the issues with the original sentence > (pasted below) are because it is about a status change (e.g., a potential > future change from Proposed Standard to Historic) within the RFC series. > > 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. > > > Specifically, the issues are: > 1) Unclear when what exactly is "published as an RFC". > 2) Stating it is already "agreed" that the current document "will be made > Historic". We understand that a separate status change process would need to > take place. Please correct us if we've misunderstood. > > Thank you. > RFC Editor/ar > On Feb 7, 2025, at 9:50 AM, James Guichard <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com> > wrote: > > Hi Alice, > > No, I am not okay with this change but more specifically the last sentence. > The introduction of “possibly” is not what was agreed to during review. The > original text for the last sentence should stay as-is. I am okay with the > other changes. > > Jim > > From: Alice Russo <aru...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > Date: Friday, February 7, 2025 at 12:46 PM > To: James Guichard <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com> > Cc: xiao.m...@zte.com.cn <xiao.m...@zte.com.cn>, 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>, > auth48archive@rfc-ed <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>, RFC Editor > <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> > Subject: AD - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9714 > <draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-18> for your review > > 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
