Cheng, Haomian, and Siva, Please review the files at the locations below and let us know if updates are needed or if you approve the RFC for publication.
Thank you, RFC Editor/sg > On Mar 18, 2025, at 1:48 AM, Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > > Authors, > > Samuel and Zafar - thank you for your replies. We have noted your approval > on the AUTH48 page. > > Cheng, thank you for responding to our questions. We have updated the > document as described below and posted the files for your review: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9752.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9752.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9752.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9752.html > > AUTH48 diffs: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9752-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9752-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Comprehensive diffs: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9752-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9752-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Regarding the capitalization of Stateful PCE / Stateful PCEP - we lowercased > in all instances except where it was followed by extension. We believe this > matches the use in RFC 8231. > > Please review and let us know if additional updates are needed or if you > approve the RFC for publication. > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/sg > > > >> On Mar 11, 2025, at 3:18 PM, Cheng Li <c.l=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> >> wrote: >> >> Hi RFC editor, >> >> Thanks for your work! The diff looks good to me. >> >> For the questions, please see my reply inline. >> >> Thanks, >> Cheng >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> >> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2025 7:23 AM >> To: Cheng Li <c...@huawei.com>; Zhenghaomian <zhenghaom...@huawei.com>; >> msiva...@gmail.com; ssi...@cisco.com; z...@cisco.com >> Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org; pce-...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org; >> d...@dhruvdhody.com; r...@cert.org; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org >> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9752 <draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-13> >> for your review >> >> 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. --> >> [Cheng]PCE, Vendor specific, vendor-specific >> >> 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. >> --> >> [Cheng]OK >> >> 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: >> --> >> [Cheng]OK >> >> >> 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]. >> --> >> [Cheng]OK >> >> 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. >> --> >> [Cheng]I do not have opinion here, so OK with that. >> >> >> 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. >> [Cheng]ok with me. >> >> - 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 >> --> >> >> [Cheng]well, thanks! I did not notice this. >> I checked RFC8231, it use uppercase and lowercase ones as well. But in most >> cases, the lowercase one is used. Therefore, I may prefer to use lowercase >> 'stateful' >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> --> >> [Cheng]OK to me, no change is needed. >> >> 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
