Hi Madison, I approve the document.
Thank you. YL On Tue, Feb 11, 2025, 10:38 AM Madison Church <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > Hi Authors, > > Jie - Thank you for your quick reply! We have updated the document as > requested and your approval has been noted on the AUTH48 status page (see > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9732). All of our questions have > been addressed. > > All - 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 files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9732.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9732.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9732.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9732.xml > > The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9732-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9732-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9732-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9732-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by > side) > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9732 > > Thank you! > RFC Editor/mc > > > On Feb 11, 2025, at 12:11 AM, Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.d...@huawei.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Thanks for the update, please see replies to the remaining questions > inline: > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Madison Church <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > >> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 6:58 AM > >> To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.d...@huawei.com>; ta-miyas...@kddi.com; > >> lizhenqi...@chinamobile.com; younglee...@gmail.com; > >> stewart.bry...@gmail.com > >> Cc: Megan Ferguson <mfergu...@staff.rfc-editor.org>; teas-...@ietf.org; > >> teas-cha...@ietf.org; Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net>; James Guichard > >> <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com>; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org; RFC > >> Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> > >> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9732 <draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn-20> > for > >> your review > >> > >> Hi Jie and Stewart, > >> > >> Thank you for your replies. We have updated the document according to > >> Jie’s response and have a few followup questions/comments. > >> > >>>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] Please review the use of RFC 4364 as a reference for > >>>>> L3VPN in the following text as we don't see L3VPN or layer 3 in > >>>>> that document. > >>>>> > >>>>> Original: > >>>>> Examples of technologies to provide VPN services are: IPVPN > >>>>> [RFC2764], L2VPN [RFC4664], L3VPN [RFC4364], and EVPN [RFC7432]. > >>> > >>> Although it is well known that RFC 4364 is about L3VPN, I agree L3VPN > or > >> layer-3 is not used explicitly in that document. It uses IP VPN instead. > >>> > >>> In this draft we can follow that way and replace L3VPN with IP VPN. > >> > >> 1) Note that we have updated the citation tag for RFC 4364 to appear > after > >> "IPVPN [RFC2764]". Additionally, should "IPVPN" have a space between > "IP" > >> and "VPN" based on its use RFCs 2764 and 4364? > >> > >> Current: > >> Examples of technologies to provide VPN services are as follows: IPVPN > >> [RFC2764] [RFC4364], L2VPN [RFC4664], and EVPN [RFC7432]. > >> > >> Perhaps: > >> Examples of technologies to provide VPN services are as follows: IP VPN > >> [RFC2764] [RFC4364], L2VPN [RFC4664], and EVPN [RFC7432]. > > > > It is better to align with RFC 2764 and 4364, using IP VPN instead of > IPVPN. > > > > > >>>>> > >>>>> 12) <!--[rfced] FYI - we have broken this long sentence into a > bulleted > >>>>> list for the ease of the reader. Please review and ensure we > >>>>> have maintained your intended meaning. > >>>>> > >>>>> Original: > >>>>> Based on the set of network resource partitions provided by the > >>>>> physical network infrastructure, multiple NRPs can be created, each > >>>>> with a set of dedicated or shared network resources allocated from > >>>>> the physical underlay network, and each can be associated with a > >>>>> customized logical network topology, so as to meet the requirements > >>>>> of different enhanced VPN services or different groups of enhanced > >>>>> VPN services. > >>>>> > >>>>> Current: > >>>>> Based on the set of network resource partitions provided by the > >>>>> physical network infrastructure, multiple NRPs can be created. Each > >>>>> of these NRPs: > >>>>> > >>>>> * has a set of dedicated or shared network resources allocated from > >>>>> the physical underlay network, and > >>>>> > >>>>> * can be associated with a customized logical network topology so as > >>>>> to meet the requirements of different enhanced VPN services or > >>>>> different groups of enhanced VPN services. > >>>>> --> > >>> > >>> Actually the last sentence "so as to meet the requirements... " is > related to > >> both bullets. > >>> > >>> Maybe split it as a separate bullet? > >> > >> 2) Thank you for your suggestion! We have updated the text as follows. > >> Please let us know if any additional changes are needed. > >> > >> Current: > >> Based on the set of network resource partitions provided by the > >> physical network infrastructure, multiple NRPs can be created. Each > >> of these NRPs: > >> > >> * has a set of dedicated or shared network resources allocated from > >> the physical underlay network, > >> > >> * can be associated with a customized logical network topology, and > >> > >> * meets the requirements of different enhanced VPN services or > >> different groups of enhanced VPN services. > > > > This update looks good. I just have one small suggestion for your > consideration: > > > > Since it is talking about "each NRP", in the last bullet maybe it is > better to replace "different enhanced VPN services" with "a specific > enhanced VPN service", and replace "different groups of enhanced VPN > services" with "a specific group of enhanced VPN services"? > > > > With these updates, I approve the publication of this document. > > > > Thanks for all the help! > > > > Best regards, > > Jie > > > >> > >> The updated files have been posted here (please refresh): > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9732.txt > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9732.pdf > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9732.html > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9732.xml > >> > >> The diff files have been posted here: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9732-diff.html (comprehensive > >> diff) > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9732-rfcdiff.html (side by > side) > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9732-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 > >> updates only) > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9732-auth48rfcdiff.html (side > by > >> side) > >> > >> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9732 > >> > >> Thank you, > >> RFC Editor/mc > >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
