Xiao Min, Thank you for your reply. At this point, all the questions have been addressed. Here is the AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9747
We await approvals -- or any additional changes -- from you and your coauthors. Thank you. RFC Editor/ar > On Mar 6, 2025, at 5:33 PM, xiao.m...@zte.com.cn wrote: > > Hi Alice, > > > Thank you for the updates. > > Please see inline. > > Original > From: AliceRusso <aru...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > To: 肖敏10093570; > Cc: 程伟强 <chengweiqi...@chinamobile.com>;wangrui...@chinamobile.com > <wangrui...@chinamobile.com>;res...@yahoo.com > <res...@yahoo.com>;rche...@juniper.net <rche...@juniper.net>;bfd-...@ietf.org > <bfd-...@ietf.org>;bfd-cha...@ietf.org <bfd-cha...@ietf.org>;jh...@pfrc.org > <jh...@pfrc.org>;Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyn...@cisco.com>;RFC Editor > <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>;auth48archive@rfc-ed > <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>; > Date: 2025年03月07日 07:32 > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9747 <draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo-14> for > your review > 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. > [XM]>>> I prefer (A). The proposed update looks good to me. > > > > Cheers, > > Xiao Min > > > > 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 -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
