Hi Sandy, Thank you for the message, I am writing to approve the publication.
Best wishes, Haomian -----邮件原件----- 发件人: Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> 发送时间: 2025年3月28日 2:06 收件人: Cheng Li <c.l=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> 抄送: RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; Zhenghaomian <zhenghaom...@huawei.com>; msiva...@gmail.com; ssi...@cisco.com; z...@cisco.com; pce-...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org; d...@dhruvdhody.com; Roman Danyliw <r...@cert.org>; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org 主题: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9752 <draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-13> for your review 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-4Q9l2USx >> IAe6P8O4Zc >> >> * 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
