Xiao Min, Thank you for your reply. Please see the follow-up below. The revised files are here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9747.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9747.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9747.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9747.xml
This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9747-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9747-rfcdiff.html (side by side) This diff file shows only the changes made during AUTH48 thus far: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9747-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9747-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) Re: #8 > [XM]>>> Actually plural was intended, "coexist with other types of BFD > sessions" looks better. OK; updated to plural. For this part, do you prefer A or B or otherwise? (A) the remote system for the Unaffiliated BFD Echo session must be different from the remote system for any other type of BFD session (B) the remote system for the Unaffiliated BFD Echo session must be different from the remote system for the other types of BFD sessions Updated: At a BFD- enabled local system, the Unaffiliated BFD Echo session can coexist with other types of BFD sessions. In that scenario, the remote system for the Unaffiliated BFD Echo session must be different from the remote system for any other type of BFD session, and the local system's discriminators for different BFD sessions must be different. At the same time, it's not necessary for the local system to differentiate the Unaffiliated BFD Echo session from the other types of BFD sessions. We will wait to hear from you again and from your coauthors before continuing the publication process. This page shows the AUTH48 status of your document: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9747 Thank you. RFC Editor/ar > On Mar 5, 2025, at 7:16 PM, <xiao.m...@zte.com.cn> <xiao.m...@zte.com.cn> > wrote: > > Dear RFC Editor, > > Thank you for your efforts. > Please see inline my responses with [XM]>>>. > Original > From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> > To: chengweiqi...@chinamobile.com > <chengweiqi...@chinamobile.com>;wangrui...@chinamobile.com > <wangrui...@chinamobile.com>;肖敏10093570;res...@yahoo.com > <res...@yahoo.com>;rche...@juniper.net <rche...@juniper.net>; > Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>;bfd-...@ietf.org > <bfd-...@ietf.org>;bfd-cha...@ietf.org <bfd-cha...@ietf.org>;jh...@pfrc.org > <jh...@pfrc.org>;evyn...@cisco.com > <evyn...@cisco.com>;auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>; > Date: 2025年03月05日 13:01 > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9747 <draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo-14> for > your review > Authors, > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48 > (https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9747.html and other formats), please > resolve the following questions, which are also in the XML file. > > 1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in > the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> > [XM]>>> Single-ended BFD. > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Because this document updates RFC 5880, please > review the errata reported for RFC 5880 > (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc5880). > Please let us know if you agree that none of them are > relevant to the content of this document. > --> > [XM]>>> Yes, none of them are relevant to the content of this document. > > 3) <!--[rfced] Please clarify this sentence, especially "from its own > standpoint". Is this about the local end's standpoint? > > Original: > The local end as an initiator may regard > the Unaffiliated BFD Echo session as a BFD session from its own > standpoint. > > Perhaps: > From the standpoint of the local end (as an initiator), > the Unaffiliated BFD Echo session may be regarded as a BFD session. > > Or: > The local end (with the viewpoint of the initiator) may regard > the Unaffiliated BFD Echo session as a BFD session. > --> > [XM]>>> Yes, this is about the local end's standpoint. I like the first > proposal. > > 4) <!--[rfced] May we update this sentence to two sentences as follows > for clarity? Specifically, the updates are assuming: > - the "once" phrase applies to the latter part. > - "is conformed to" means "conforms to". > > Original: > Unaffiliated BFD Echo > packets with zeroed "Your Discriminator" field are demultiplexed to > the proper session based on the source IP address or UDP source port, > once the remote system loops back the local discriminator, all > further received packets are demultiplexed based on the "Your > > Discriminator" field only, which is conformed to the procedure > specified in Section 6.3 of [RFC5880]. > > Perhaps: > Unaffiliated BFD Echo > packets with zeroed "Your Discriminator" field are demultiplexed to > the proper session based on the source IP address or UDP source port. > After the remote system loops back the local discriminator, all > further received packets are demultiplexed based on the "Your > > Discriminator" field only, which conforms to the procedure > specified in Section 6.3 of [RFC5880]. > --> > [XM]>>> Agreed. > > 5) <!--[rfced] We note that quotation marks are not used around the > field names in RFC 5880. Do you want to keep the quotation marks > within this document? > > Current: > "Your Discriminator" field > "Desired Min TX Interval" [field] > "Required Min RX Interval" field > "Required Min Echo RX Interval" field > --> > [XM]>>> As I recall, the quotation marks were added to address IESG review > comments, so we may keep them within this document. > > 6) <!--[rfced] Regarding the updates to Section 6.8.9 of RFC 5880 > a) Because these are two contiguous paragraphs in RFC 5880, we suggest > they be together rather than separate. Is this acceptable? > b) Because "except as follows" conveys meaning to the reader (i.e., they > need to read the subsequent text in RFC 5880), we suggest including it in > the OLD and NEW TEXT. > > Suggested: > The 1st and 2nd paragraphs of Section 6.8.9 of [RFC5880] are updated > as below: > > OLD TEXT > > | BFD Echo packets MUST NOT be transmitted when bfd.SessionState is > | not Up. BFD Echo packets MUST NOT be transmitted unless the last > | BFD Control packet received from the remote system contains a > | nonzero value in Required Min Echo RX Interval. > | > | BFD Echo packets MAY be transmitted when bfd.SessionState is Up. > | The interval between transmitted BFD Echo packets MUST NOT be less > | than the value advertised by the remote system in Required Min > | Echo RX Interval, except as follows: [...] > > NEW TEXT > > | When a system is using the Echo function with either Asynchronous > | or Demand mode, BFD Echo packets MUST NOT be transmitted when > | bfd.SessionState is not Up, and BFD Echo packets MUST NOT be > | transmitted unless the last BFD Control packet received from the > | remote system contains a nonzero value in Required Min Echo RX > | Interval. > | > | When a system is using the Echo function with either Asynchronous > | or Demand mode, BFD Echo packets MAY be transmitted when > | bfd.SessionState is Up, and the interval between transmitted BFD > | Echo packets MUST NOT be less than the value advertised by the > | remote system in Required Min Echo RX Interval, except as follows: > | [...] > --> > [XM]>>> Agreed. > > 7) <!--[rfced] Please clarify this sentence, in particular, > "would be counter productive to check". > > Original: > Moreover, creating congestion would be counter > productive to check the bidirectional connectivity. > > Perhaps: > Moreover, creating congestion would be > counterproductive to checking the bidirectional connectivity. > --> > [XM]>>> Agreed. > > 8) <!--[rfced] FYI, we updated this sentence to three sentences as follows; > please review whether the text conveys the intended meaning. In > particular, please review whether "other BFD system" was intended as > singular (as below) or plural (perhaps you intended "coexist with > other types of BFD sessions"). > > Original: > At a BFD- > enabled local system, the Unaffiliated BFD Echo session can coexist > with other type of BFD session, in which scenario the remote system > for the Unaffiliated BFD Echo session must be different from the > remote system for other type of BFD session, and the local system's > discriminators for different BFD sessions must be different, at the > same time it's not necessary for the local system to differentiate > the Unaffiliated BFD Echo session from other type of BFD session. > > Current: > At a BFD- > enabled local system, the Unaffiliated BFD Echo session can coexist > with another type of BFD session. In that scenario, the remote > system for the Unaffiliated BFD Echo session must be different from > the remote system for the other type of BFD session, and the local > system's discriminators for different BFD sessions must be different. > At the same time, it's not necessary for the local system to > differentiate the Unaffiliated BFD Echo session from the other type > of BFD session. > --> > [XM]>>> Actually plural was intended, "coexist with other types of BFD > sessions" looks better. > > 9) <!-- [rfced] FYI, we have updated this reference to match > what was available at the URL, as shown below. > > For the URL, would you prefer to use the original > (A) https://www.broadband-forum.org/technical/download/TR-146.pdf > (which redirects to a wiki page titled "Broadband Forum Published > Resources") or > (B) https://www.broadband-forum.org/pdfs/tr-146-1-0-0.pdf > (which is the document itself)? > > Original: > [BBF-TR-146] > Broadband Forum, "BBF Technical Report - Subscriber > Sessions Issue 1", 2013, <https://www.broadband- > forum.org/technical/download/TR-146.pdf>. > > > Current: > [BBF-TR-146] > Broadband Forum, "TR-146: Subscriber Sessions", Broadband > Forum Technical Report, TR-146, Issue 1, May 2013, > <https://www.broadband-forum.org/technical/download/TR- > 146.pdf>. > --> > [XM]>>> For the URL, I prefer (B), thank you for checking it. And your > proposed change to this reference looks good to me. > > 10) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online > > Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> > and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically > result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. > > Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should > still be reviewed as a best practice. > --> > [XM]>>> Thank you for the reminder. I don't find any needed changes. > > > > Best Regards, > > Xiao Min > > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor/ar > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
