Hi Takuya, Thank you for your quick reply! We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9732).
Once we receive approvals from Stewart, we will move this document forward in the publication process. Thank you! RFC Editor/mc > On Feb 13, 2025, at 11:26 AM, Takuya Miyasaka <ta-miyas...@kddi.com> wrote: > > 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
