Hi Alice,
Thank you very much for your effort.
I am pleased to confirm my approval.
B.R.
Weiqiang Cheng
---原始邮件---
发件人: Alice Russo <aru...@staff.rfc-editor.org>
发送时间: 2025-03-08 02:40:43
收件人: "xiao.min2" <xiao.m...@zte.com.cn>
抄送: "程伟强" <chengweiqi...@chinamobile.com>
wangruixue <wangrui...@chinamobile.com>
reshad <res...@yahoo.com>
rchetan <rche...@juniper.net>
bfd-ads <bfd-...@ietf.org>
bfd-chairs <bfd-cha...@ietf.org>
jhaas <jh...@pfrc.org>
"Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyn...@cisco.com>
RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>
"auth48archive@rfc-ed" <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
主题: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9747 foryour review
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/rfc9747We 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 > To:
肖敏10093570> Cc: 程伟强 wangrui...@chinamobile.com res...@yahoo.com
rche...@juniper.net bfd-...@ietf.org bfd-cha...@ietf.org jh...@pfrc.org Eric
Vyncke (evyncke) RFC Editor auth48archive@rfc-ed > Date: 2025年03月07日 07:32>
Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9747 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
