Authors, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) 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. --> 2) <!-- [rfced] "to revise the refrence to the IANA registry" is unclear without further context. Please consider whether the suggested text clarifies the intent. Original: This document updates RFC 7470 to revise the reference to the IANA registry for managing Enterprise Numbers. Perhaps: This document updates RFC 7470 to specify that Enterprise numbers are managed through the "Private Enterprise Numbers (PENs)" registry. --> 3) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, may we update the text as follows? Original: The format of the PCUpd message (with Section 6.2 of [RFC8231] as the base) is updated as follows: ... The format of the PCInitiate message (with Section 5.1 of [RFC8281] as the base) is updated as follows: Perhaps: The format of the PCUpd message (using the format described in Section 6.2 of [RFC8231] as the base) is updated as follows: ... The format of the PCInitiate message (using the format described in Section 5.1 of [RFC8281] as the base) is updated as follows: --> 4) <!-- [rfced] The use of "as per" twice in this sentence is confusing. As it seems the second instance refers to best practices for implementing TLS, please consider the update below. Original: As per [RFC8231] it is RECOMMENDED that these PCEP extensions only be activated on authenticated and encrypted sessions across PCEs and PCCs using Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253], as per the recommendations and best current practices in RFC 9325 [BCP195]. Perhaps: Per [RFC8231], it is RECOMMENDED that these PCEP extensions only be activated on authenticated and encrypted sessions across PCEs and PCCs using Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253]. See the recommendations and best current practices for using TLS in RFC 9325 [BCP195]. --> 5) <!-- [rfced] We updated artwork to sourcecode in Section 2, with type set to "rbnf". Please review and let us know if any updates are needed. The current list of preferred values for "type" is available at <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types>. If the current list does not contain an applicable type, feel free to suggest additions for consideration. Note that it is also acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set. --> 6) <!-- [rfced] Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used inconsistently. - Vendor Information Object vs Vendor Information object (per RFC 7470) We have updated this as "Vendor Information object". Please let us know any objections. - Please review the capitalization of stateful in the following and let us know if/how they should be made consistent. stateful PCE operations Stateful PCE Stateful PCE deployment Stateful PCE model Stateful PCE extensions Stateful PCEP extensions Stateful PCEP messages stateful PCEP message stateful PCEP objects --> 7) <!-- [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. --> Thank you. RFC Editor On Mar 9, 2025, at 11:14 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/03/09 RFC Author(s): -------------- Instructions for Completing AUTH48 Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing your approval. Planning your review --------------------- Please review the following aspects of your document: * RFC Editor questions Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as follows: <!-- [rfced] ... --> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. * Changes submitted by coauthors Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. * Content Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) - contact information - references * Copyright notices and legends Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). * Semantic markup Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. * Formatted output Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. Submitting changes ------------------ To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties include: * your coauthors * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team) * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion list: * More info: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc * The archive itself: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and its addition will be noted at the top of the message. You may submit your changes in one of two ways: An update to the provided XML file — OR — An explicit list of changes in this format Section # (or indicate Global) OLD: old text NEW: new text You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit list of changes, as either form is sufficient. We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. Approving for publication -------------------------- To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. Files ----- The files are available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9752.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9752.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9752.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9752.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9752-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9752-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9752-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9752 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC 9752 (draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-13) Title : Conveying Vendor-Specific Information in the Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions for Stateful PCE. Author(s) : C. Li, H. Zheng, S. Sivabalan, S. Sidor, Z. Ali WG Chair(s) : Julien Meuric, Dhruv Dhody Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, John Scudder, Gunter Van de Velde -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
