Hi Madison and all, I approve the publication of this document.
Best regards, Takuya -----Original Message----- From: Madison Church <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 4:32 AM To: Young Lee <younglee...@gmail.com>; Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.d...@huawei.com>; 宮坂 拓也 <ta-miyas...@kddi.com>; Zhenqiang Li <lizhenqi...@chinamobile.com>; Stewart Bryant <stewart.bry...@gmail.com> Cc: Megan Ferguson <mfergu...@staff.rfc-editor.org>; teas-...@ietf.org; TEAS WG Chairs <teas-cha...@ietf.org>; Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net>; James Guichard <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com>; auth48archive@rfc-ed <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 Zhenqiang and Young, Thank you both for your quick replies! We have updated the document per Zhenqiang’s suggestions and noted your approvals on the AUTH48 status page (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9732). 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 Updated diffs have been posted here: 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) Once we receive approvals from Stewart and Takuya, we will move this document forward in the publication process. Thank you! RFC Editor/mc > On Feb 12, 2025, at 12:17 AM, Young Lee <younglee...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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
