Please log my publication approval. Best regards
Stewart > On 13 Feb 2025, at 17:43, Madison Church <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > 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
