Hi Jim, Thanks for your quick reply and for being open to the change. We will continue with the publication process shortly.
Thanks, Sandy > On Feb 14, 2025, at 2:16 PM, James Guichard <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com> > wrote: > > Hi Sandy, > > I am okay with this text. > > Thanks! > > Jim > > From: Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > Date: Friday, February 14, 2025 at 5:14 PM > To: Tony Li <tony...@tony.li> > Cc: James Guichard <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com>, xiao. min2 > <xiao.m...@zte.com.cn>, Weiqiang Cheng <chengweiqi...@chinamobile.com>, > Tianran Zhou <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>, auth48archive@rfc-ed <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>, > RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> > Subject: Re: AD - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9714 > <draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-18> for your review > > Greetings all, > > Thank you for the explanations - with that in mind, we make a last attempt to > improve the clarity of this paragraph. The last sentence clarifies who > agreed that the document should be moved to Historic (which also clarifies > some process implications for the RPC). Please consider whether the > following update is acceptable. > > Original: > 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. > > > Perhaps: > Note that, at the time of writing, 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. The MPLS Working Group has agreed > that this document will be made Historic when that solution is published > as an RFC. > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/sg > > > > On Feb 10, 2025, at 2:10 PM, Tony Li <tony...@tony.li> wrote: > > > > > > 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://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9714.txt&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C46254724589043a4758c08dd4d44f043%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638751680698511633%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=gJwA7RqqhLVMLBSQWdb64Z%2BxtIymgpVKwUXpNY2AdEo%3D&reserved=0 > >> (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://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-cx-mpls-mna-&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C46254724589043a4758c08dd4d44f043%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638751680698539011%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=h5qbuGc76mLrYA%2Fk071pIKrIBT77xhhjBtQZZ0L%2BNiM%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> inband-pm-05>. > >>>> > >>>> Files available: > >>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9714.txt&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C46254724589043a4758c08dd4d44f043%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638751680698551338%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=EXrJ7%2F5jscelDuhAErN9Q9%2FTrpqAOXXgbpi2xF2prAQ%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9714.pdf&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C46254724589043a4758c08dd4d44f043%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638751680698566251%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dHk6csKMPjOfoSnOB2jM0LJK8h8LjS0srQmrvE3OMtI%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9714.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C46254724589043a4758c08dd4d44f043%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638751680698585536%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=EVBigqtuPlQikF95xXOFjgAr8fFr1QSaz%2FB3vvfLKnQ%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9714.xml&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C46254724589043a4758c08dd4d44f043%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638751680698603430%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ygBII47zEO%2B%2FamTxmZUlAZFHZMihneiD7XSM4kir5D4%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9714-diff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C46254724589043a4758c08dd4d44f043%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638751680698621993%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WhIeTobw4XVcG33PrDZsqrhY7DEc87AfgDdO%2B4krLm0%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9714-rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C46254724589043a4758c08dd4d44f043%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638751680698640093%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=oBUTnElaqtve%2F1FeqVwK13ojRE1CvF4mM397sHmNvjk%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> (side by side) > >>>> > >>>> Diff of only the most recent changes: > >>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9714-lastdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C46254724589043a4758c08dd4d44f043%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638751680698658583%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=i4rdWq%2Bj8uwNMn3a4AAeVRXRu6j4SaxIuvzbQ4%2BeJF4%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9714-lastrfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C46254724589043a4758c08dd4d44f043%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638751680698676944%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=XjbAhBzcJVtZdWT%2F7dsUTi8Skj0HtCyK53AVUH3Dtrw%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> (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://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9714.txt&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C46254724589043a4758c08dd4d44f043%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638751680698694485%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bT5r2XvBwUm15jwYoGiixRcbzp5J4KcHKqR4shYs71I%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>> [and html and pdf] > >>>>> [2] > >>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C46254724589043a4758c08dd4d44f043%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638751680698711594%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=HY2ikhEFEXavlBnC14qSt91I%2Fs5Bf8qQ3QlsrbrZYTc%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>> (in the RFC Editor queue in EDIT state) > >>>>> [3] > >>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Farchive%2Fid%2Fdraft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-17...txt&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C46254724589043a4758c08dd4d44f043%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638751680698728619%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=1aCpG7zuqzhUhxwSh5wQWziXedp77HMzlPAf%2BTd6OnU%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>> > >>>>> Thank you. > >>>>> RFC Editor/ar > > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
