Hi Sandy, One tiny nit, We have one instance of "PCinit message" and one instance of "PCinitiate message"; please change both to PCInitiate message (as per RFC 8281)
Thanks! Dhruv On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 9:11 PM Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > Hi Cheng, > > Thank you for reply. We have updated the text and posted the revised > files. We believe you approve the RFC for publication, so we have noted > your approval on the AUTH48 page < > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9753>. We will wait to hear from > your coauthors before continuing with publication. > > Current files: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753.html > > Diffs of the most recent update: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753-lastdiff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753-lastrfcdiff.html (side by > side) > > AUTH48 diffs: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by > side) > > Comprehensive diffs: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/sg > > > > > On Apr 2, 2025, at 2:02 AM, Cheng Li <c...@huawei.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Sandy, > > > > Just to be clear. I confirm that we can publish the RFC. > > > > Thanks, > > Cheng > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Cheng Li > > Sent: Friday, March 28, 2025 11:20 AM > > To: 'Sandy Ginoza' <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > > Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; Zhenghaomian < > zhenghaom...@huawei.com>; slitkows.i...@gmail.com; pce-...@ietf.org; > pce-cha...@ietf.org; d...@dhruvdhody.com; Roman Danyliw <r...@cert.org>; > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > > Subject: RE: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9753 > <draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-13> for your review > > > > Hi Sandy, > > > > Sorry for my delay. > > I think the current text is good to me. > > > > Regarding the new text you suggested below, I think I can understand it > without problem. And the current text in the link is also ok to me. > Therefore, you can choose the better one from your point of view. > > > > Based the NEW text, we suggest this update: > > > >> The scope of how P and I flags are applied is defined in [RFC5440] and > is unchanged by this document. Therefore, these flags can only be applied > to an entire PCEP > >> object; they cannot be applied at the granularity of optional TLVs > encoded in the PCEP Object. > > > > For the notes in the XML file(which are not shown in the text/website), > I think they can be removed. > > > > Thanks, > > Cheng > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2025 11:42 AM > > To: Cheng Li <c...@huawei.com> > > Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; Zhenghaomian < > zhenghaom...@huawei.com>; slitkows.i...@gmail.com; pce-...@ietf.org; > pce-cha...@ietf.org; d...@dhruvdhody.com; Roman Danyliw <r...@cert.org>; > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9753 > <draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-13> for your review > > > > Hi Cheng, > > > > We have updated the document as described below except for the item > you’ve asked the authors to review. The updated files are available here: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753.xml > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753.txt > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753.pdf > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753.html > > > > AUTH48 diffs: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753-auth48diff.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753-auth48rfcdiff.html (side > by side) > > > > Comprehensive files: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753-diff.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > > > > > Please review our suggested update for the new text below and let us > know if you approve. > > > >> OLD: > >> Further, it should be noted that similar to > >> handling of P and I flags in [RFC5440], the flag applies to full PCEP > >> Object and could not be applied to the granularity of an optional > >> TLVs encoded in the PCEP Object. > >> > >> > >> NEW: > >> > >> This document does not modify the scope that P and I flags can be > applied to, as defined in [RFC5440]. Therefore, these flags will only be > applied to an entire PCEP > >> object, and cannot be applied to the granularity of an optional TLVs > encoded in the PCEP Object. > > > > > > Based the NEW text, we suggest this update: > > > >> The scope of how P and I flags are applied is defined in [RFC5440] and > is unchanged by this document. Therefore, these flags can only be applied > to an entire PCEP > >> object; they cannot be applied at the granularity of optional TLVs > encoded in the PCEP Object. > > > > > > > > > > Also, we see this text commented out in the XML file. Please consider > whether any action is needed; otherwise the notes will be removed. > > > > <!--Similarly in the case of an association group > > <xref target="RFC8697"/> such as Disjoint Association <xref > > > target="RFC8800"/>, the PCE may need to completely relax the > > > disjointness constraint in order to provide a path to all the > LSPs > > that are part of the association.—> > > > > <!--By default, the PCE SHOULD set the P > > flag, unless a > > > local configuration or local policy indicates that some > constraints > > (corresponding PCEP objects) can be marked as optional and > could be > > ignored by the PCC.--> > > > > Thank you, > > RFC Editor/sg > > > > > > > > > >> On Mar 12, 2025, at 2:07 AM, Cheng Li <c.l=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi RFC Editors, > >> > >> Please see my reply inline. Thanks for your work! > >> > >> Specially, authors, please review this modification proposal. > >> > >> > >> OLD: > >> Further, it should be noted that similar to > >> handling of P and I flags in [RFC5440], the flag applies to full PCEP > >> Object and could not be applied to the granularity of an optional > >> TLVs encoded in the PCEP Object. > >> > >> > >> NEW: > >> > >> This document does not modify the scope that P and I flags can be > applied to, as defined in [RFC5440]. Therefore, these flags will only be > applied to an entire PCEP > >> object, and cannot be applied to the granularity of an optional TLVs > encoded in the PCEP Object. > >> > >> Authors, please review this change. > >> > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Cheng > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> > >> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2025 7:24 AM > >> To: Cheng Li <c...@huawei.com>; Zhenghaomian <zhenghaom...@huawei.com>; > >> slitkows.i...@gmail.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 9753 > >> <draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-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] PCEP, Stateful, optional processing > >> > >> 2) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble parsing this sentence. Please > consider whether the suggested text conveys the intended meaning. > >> > >> Original: > >> [RFC5440] describes the handling of unknown objects as per the > >> setting of the P flag for the PCReq message. > >> > >> Perhaps: > >> Setting the P flag in the PCReq message to handle unknown objects > >> is as described in Section 7.2 of [RFC5440]. > >> --> > >> [Cheng]OK > >> > >> > >> 3) <!-- [rfced] Does marking something as optional allow the PCEP peer > to ignore the object? If yes, may we update the text as follows? > >> > >> Original: > >> In these cases, it would be useful to mark > >> the objects as 'optional' and they could be ignored by the PCEP peer. > >> > >> Perhaps: > >> In these cases, it would be useful to mark > >> the objects as 'optional' so they could be ignored by the PCEP peer. > >> --> > >> [Cheng]OK > >> > >> 4) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble parsing this text. It refers to > the P and I flags, but then switches to "the flag". Does "the flag" refer > to the R flag, which has not yet been introduced? Please review and let us > know how the text may be clarified. > >> > >> Original (prior sentence included for context): > >> Thus, this document specifies how the already existing P and I flags > >> in the PCEP common object header could be used during the stateful > >> PCEP message exchange. Further, it should be noted that similar to > >> handling of P and I flags in [RFC5440], the flag applies to full PCEP > >> Object and could not be applied to the granularity of an optional > >> TLVs encoded in the PCEP Object. > >> > >> Perhaps: > >> Further, it should be noted that, similar to > >> handling of P and I flags in [RFC5440], the flag indicating that the > >> constraint has been relaxed applies to the full PCEP object and cannot > >> be applied at the granularity of an optional TLV encoded in the PCEP > >> object. > >> --> > >> [Cheng]I do not think 'the flag' is correct here. It should not be the > R flag, but the 'P and I flags'. After discussing with Dhruv, we confirm > that we should use the flags(P and I flags). Please see the new text below. > >> > >> OLD: > >> Further, it should be noted that similar to > >> handling of P and I flags in [RFC5440], the flag applies to full PCEP > >> Object and could not be applied to the granularity of an optional > >> TLVs encoded in the PCEP Object. > >> > >> > >> NEW: > >> > >> This document does not modify the scope that P and I flags can be > applied to, as defined in [RFC5440]. Therefore, these flags will only be > applied to an entire PCEP > >> object, and cannot be applied to the granularity of an optional TLVs > encoded in the PCEP Object. > >> > >> Authors, please review this change. > >> > >> > >> > >> 5) <!-- [rfced] PCUpd seems to be exapnded slightly differently in two > places. Based on what we see in RFC 8231 (see below), we don't believe the > terms are interchangeable. Please review and let us know how/if these > should be made consistent? Perhaps Section 3.3.2 can just refer to PCUpd > and PCInitiate since those terms are introduced earlier in the document? > >> > >> Section 1: Path Computation Update Request (PCUpd) > >> This document defines a new flag, the R > >> (RELAX) flag in STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV in the PCEP common object > >> header to indicate a PCE speaker supporting P and I flags processing, > >> and also specifies how the P and I flags could be used in the > >> stateful PCE model to identify optional objects in the Path > >> Computation State Report (PCRpt) [RFC8231], the Path Computation > >> Update Request (PCUpd) [RFC8231], and the LSP Initiate Request > >> (PCInitiate) [RFC8281] message. > >> > >> Section 3.3.2: LSP Update Request (PCUpd) > >> The I flag in the PCRpt message [RFC8231] allows a PCC to indicate to > >> a PCE whether or not an optional object was processed in response to > >> an LSP Update Request (PCUpd) or LSP Initiate Request (PCInitiate). > >> > >> > >> From RFC 8231: > >> Path Computation Update Request (PCUpd) > >> > >> Section 6.2 of RFC 8231: > >> A PCUpd message can carry more than one LSP > >> Update Request. > >> --> > >> [Cheng]It takes few minutes to understand the problem. Ha, we can > change LSP update request to PCUpd message, and LSP Initiate request to > PCinit message. The purpose is not to emphasize the LSP, but the message. > >> > >> > >> 6) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble parsing this sentence. Please > consider whether the suggested text is more clear. Otherwise, please > clarify. > >> > >> Original: > >> This document updates the handling of unknown objects in the stateful > >> PCEP messages as per the setting of the P flag in the common object > >> header in a similar way as [RFC5440], i.e. if a PCEP speaker does not > >> understand an object with the P flag set or understands the object > >> but decides to ignore the object, the entire stateful PCEP message > >> MUST be rejected and the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with Error- > >> Type="Unknown Object" or "Not supported Object" [RFC5440]. > >> > >> Perahps: > >> This document updates the handling of unknown objects in the stateful > >> PCEP messages by setting the P flag in the common object > >> header in a similar way as described in [RFC5440]. That is, if a > >> PCEP speaker does not understand an object with the P flag set, or > >> if the PCEP speaker understands the object > >> but decides to ignore the object, the entire stateful PCEP message > >> MUST be rejected, and the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with Error- > >> Type="Unknown Object" or "Not supported object" [RFC5440]. > >> --> > >> > >> [Cheng]ok, thanks! Will avoid to use 'as per' next time, and try to > >> make the subject of a sentence clear 😊 > >> > >> > >> 7) <!-- [rfced] Note that we have lowercased "object" when it appears > as "PCEP object" to align with use in the referenced RFCs (e.g., 9753, > 5440). > >> Please let us know if any updates are needed. > >> --> > >> [Cheng]please follow the best practice, I am ok with lowercase or > uppercase. Thanks. > >> > >> > >> 8) <!-- [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]no change needed, thanks! > >> > >> I have review the diff file, the modification is ok to me. > >> > >> > >> Thank you. > >> > >> RFC Editor > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mar 9, 2025, at 11:16 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-4Q9l2USxI > >> Ae6P8O4Zc > >> > >> * 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/rfc9753.xml > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753.html > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753.pdf > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753.txt > >> > >> Diff file of the text: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753-diff.html > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753-rfcdiff.html (side by > >> side) > >> > >> Diff of the XML: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753-xmldiff1.html > >> > >> > >> Tracking progress > >> ----------------- > >> > >> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9753 > >> > >> Please let us know if you have any questions. > >> > >> Thank you for your cooperation, > >> > >> RFC Editor > >> > >> -------------------------------------- > >> RFC 9753 (draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-13) > >> > >> Title : Extension for Stateful PCE to allow Optional > Processing of PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) Objects > >> Author(s) : C. Li, H. Zheng, S. Litkowski > >> 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
