Xiao Min, Thank you for your reply. We have added the word 'field' as requested, and recorded your approval on the status page (https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9747).
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 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) This diff file shows only the changes since the last posted version: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9747-lastrfcdiff.html We await word from R. Rahman and R. Boddireddy, as shown on the AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9747 Thank you. RFC Editor/ar > On Mar 10, 2025, at 2:13 AM, xiao.m...@zte.com.cn wrote: > > 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
