Hi, Jim’s memory is correct and the original text is exactly what is intended.
The proposed text is a bit over-ambitious. [MNA-PM-with-AMM] is still very much a draft and has not been accepted by the working group, and it is not at all clear that it will eventually become an RFC. Other proposals may happen and may overtake [MNA-PM-with-AMM], so the original text was a bit more open to account for that kind of outcome. When there is a successor, yes, there will need to be a separate status change, following normal procedures. We are trying to let the reader know that this change is planned, so that they may adapt accordingly. Regards, Tony > On Feb 10, 2025, at 1:54 PM, Alice Russo - arusso at staff.rfc-editor.org > <mailforwa...@cloudmails.net> wrote: > > 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
