Hi Alice,
I approve, with a suggested minor editorial change, s/"Detect Mult" defined in
[RFC5880]/"Detect Mult" field defined in [RFC5880].
Cheers,
Xiao Min
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08日 02:40
Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9747 <draft-ietf-bfd-unaffiliated-echo-14> for
your 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/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
