Haomian, Thank you for your reply. We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 page <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9752>.
The RFC will be announced once we have received approval from each of the authors. Thank you, RFC Editor/sg > On Mar 27, 2025, at 2:48 PM, Zhenghaomian <zhenghaom...@huawei.com> wrote: > > 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
