Hi Sandy, We can use:
Daniel Voyer Cisco system Email: d <danvoyerw...@gmail.com>avo...@ciscol.com Thanks Dan On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 5:23 PM Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > Dan, > > Please let us know how your contact information should be updated. The > document currently contains the entry below, but mail sent to < > daniel.vo...@bell.ca> failed (Address not found). > > Daniel Voyer > Bell Canada > Email: daniel.vo...@bell.ca > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/sg > > > On Apr 21, 2025, at 2:19 PM, Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > > > > Hi Rakesh, > > > > Thank you for your review and reply. We have updated the document based > on your replies below. For item 9, we are having trouble parsing the text: > > > >> <RG> How about following? > >> > >> In one-way measurement mode defined in Section 2.4 of [RFC6374], the > >> querier can receive response messages with an IP/UDP > >> header “out-of-band” by properly setting the UDP Return Object (URO) > TLV in the > >> query message. > > > > We wonder if the following correctly conveys the intended meaning? > > > > In one-way measurement mode defined in Section 2.4 of [RFC6374], the > > querier can receive a response to an Out-of-band Response Requested > > message by properly setting the UDP Return Object (URO) TLV > > in the IP/UDP header. > > > > > > Please review the updated files here: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.xml > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.txt > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.pdf > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.html > > > > AUTH48 diffs (highlight only the changes noted below): > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-auth48diff.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-auth48rfcdiff.html (side > by side) > > > > Comprehensive diffs: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-diff.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > > > 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 Apr 16, 2025, at 8:01 PM, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <rgandhi= > 40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > >> > >> Hello Editor, > >> > >> Thank you for the great updates to the document. > >> > >> Note: I am adding new email IDs for Dan Voyer. Dan, please reply with > your preference on how you would like to update your information in the > RFC-to-be. > >> > >> Please see replies inline with <RG>… > >> > >> > >> From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> > >> Date: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 at 7:00 PM > >> To: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <rgan...@cisco.com>, Clarence Filsfils > (cfilsfil) <cfils...@cisco.com>, daniel.vo...@bell.ca < > daniel.vo...@bell.ca>, stefano.sals...@uniroma2.it < > stefano.sals...@uniroma2.it>, mach.c...@huawei.com <mach.c...@huawei.com> > >> Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, > mpls-...@ietf.org <mpls-...@ietf.org>, mpls-cha...@ietf.org < > mpls-cha...@ietf.org>, tony...@tony.li<tony...@tony.li>, > james.n.guich...@futurewei.com <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com>, > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> > >> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9779 <draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sr-17> 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] May we update the document title as shown below for > >> clarity? > >> > >> Original: > >> Performance Measurement for Segment Routing Networks with MPLS Data > >> Plane > >> > >> Perhaps: > >> Performance Measurement for Segment Routing Networks over the MPLS > Data Plane > >> > >> --> > >> > >> <RG> We could use following example as a guidance? > >> > >> RFC 8660 uses term: Segment Routing with the MPLS Data Plane > >> > >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8660 > >> > >> <RG> Performance Measurement for Segment Routing Networks with the MPLS > Data Plane > >> > >> > >> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in > >> the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> > >> > >> > >> <RG> Delay Measurement, Loss Measurement, Link Measurement, SR-MPLS > Policy Measurement > >> > >> > >> 3) <!-- [rfced] We have updated the text below for readability and to > >> clarify the relationship between SR-MPLS and its expansion. Please > review > >> and let us know any objections. > >> > >> Original: > >> This document specifies the application of the MPLS loss and delay > >> measurement techniques, originally defined in RFC 6374, RFC 7876, and > >> RFC 9341 within Segment Routing (SR) networks that utilize the MPLS > >> data plane (SR-MPLS). > >> > >> Current: > >> This document specifies the application of the MPLS loss and delay > >> measurement techniques (originally defined in RFCs 6374, 7876, and > 9341) > >> within Segment Routing (SR) networks that utilize the MPLS data > plane, > >> also referred to as Segment Routing over MPLS (SR-MPLS). > >> > >> --> > >> > >> <RG> Ok. > >> > >> > >> 4) <!-- [rfced] We have updated the text below to demonstrate a 1:1 > >> relationship between abbreviation and expansion. Please review. > >> > >> Original: > >> > >> Segment Routing (SR), as specified in [RFC8402], leverages the source > >> routing paradigm and applies to both the Multiprotocol Label > >> Switching (SR-MPLS) and IPv6 (SRv6) data planes. > >> > >> Current: > >> > >> Segment Routing (SR), as specified in [RFC8402], leverages the source > >> routing paradigm and applies to both the Multiprotocol Label > >> Switching (MPLS) and Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) data planes. > >> These are referred to as Segment Routing over MPLS (SR-MPLS) and > >> Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6), respectively. > >> > >> --> > >> <RG> Ok. > >> > >> > >> 5) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, please consider whether the following > >> suggested update conveys the intended meaning. > >> > >> Original: > >> This document defines Return Path and Block Number TLV extensions for > >> [RFC6374], in Section 6, for delay and loss measurement in SR-MPLS > >> networks. > >> > >> Current: > >> This document extends [RFC6374] by defining Return Path and Block > >> Number TLVs (see Section 6) for delay and loss measurement in > >> SR-MPLS networks. > >> --> > >> <RG> Ok. > >> > >> 6) <!-- [rfced] Does "also apply" mean "can also be used"? > >> > >> Original: > >> These TLV extensions also apply to MPLS Label Switched > >> Paths (LSPs) [RFC3031]. > >> > >> Perhaps: > >> These TLVs can also be used in MPLS Label Switched > >> Paths (LSPs) [RFC3031]. > >> --> > >> <RG> Ok > >> > >> 7) <!-- [rfced] Seemingly, Success (0x1) is a Control Code. If this is > >> correct, may we udpate the text as follows? > >> > >> Original: > >> The responder that supports this TLV MUST return > >> Success in "Control Code" [RFC6374] if it is the intended destination > >> for the query. > >> > >> Perhaps: > >> The responder that supports this TLV MUST return > >> Control Code 0x1 (Success) [RFC6374] if it is the intended destination > >> for the query. > >> --> > >> > >> <RG> Ok > >> > >> > >> 8) <!-- [rfced] Could the text below be adjusted for clarity? > Specifically, > >> what is being sent as "the destination address"? > >> > >> Original: > >> When the querier sets an IP address and a UDP port in the URO TLV, the > >> response message MUST be sent to that IP address as the destination > address > >> and UDP port as the destination port. > >> > >> Perhaps: > >> When the querier sets an IP address and a UDP port in the URO TLV, the > >> response message MUST be sent to that IP address, with that IP > address as > >> the destination address and the UDP port as the destination port. > >> --> > >> <RG> Ok > >> > >> > >> > >> 9) <!-- [rfced] May we update "out-of-band response messages" to > >> "Out-of-Band Response Requested messages..."? It is unclear whether > the > >> text refers to the Response Requested messages or res ponses to > Out-of-Band > >> Response Requested messages. > >> > >> Original: > >> In one-way measurement mode defined in Section 2.4 of [RFC6374], the > >> querier can receive "out-of-band" response messages with an IP/UDP > >> header by properly setting the UDP Return Object (URO) TLV in the > >> query message. > >> --> > >> <RG> How about following? > >> > >> In one-way measurement mode defined in Section 2.4 of [RFC6374], the > >> querier can receive response messages with an IP/UDP > >> header “out-of-band” by properly setting the UDP Return Object (URO) > TLV in the > >> query message. > >> > >> > >> 10) <!-- [rfced] How may we update the text below for clarity and > >> readability? > >> > >> Original: > >> In two-way measurement mode defined in Section 2.4 of [RFC6374], the > >> response messages SHOULD be sent back in-band on the same link or the > >> same end-to-end SR-MPLS path (same set of links and nodes) in the > >> reverse direction to the querier, in order to perform accurate two- > >> way delay measurement. > >> > >> Perhaps: > >> In the two-way measurement mode defined in Section 2.4 of [RFC6374], > >> the response messages SHOULD be sent back one of two ways: either > >> they are sent back in-band on the same link, or they are sent back > >> on the same end-to-end SR-MPLS path (i.e., the same set of links and > >> nodes) in the reverse direction to the querier. This is done in order > >> to perform accurate two-way delay measurement. > >> > >> --> > >> <RG> Ok. > >> > >> > >> > >> 11) <!-- [rfced] For readability, we suggest the update below. Please > >> review to ensure it does not impact the intended meaning. > >> > >> Original: > >> The querier can request in the query message for the responder > >> to send the response message back on a given return path using the > >> MPLS Label Stack sub-TLV in the Return Path TLV defined in this > >> document. > >> > >> Perhaps: > >> In the query message, the querier can request that the responder send > >> the response message back on a given return path using the MPLS Label > >> Stack Sub-TLV in the Return Path TLV defined in this document. > >> --> > >> <RG> Ok. > >> > >> > >> > >> 12) <!-- [rfced] Please review these similar sentences and let us know > if > >> we may update them for readability. > >> > >> More specifically, what does "which" refer to in the examples below? > Does > >> it refer to the ACH or the different values in parentheses? > >> > >> <RG> Value as in the suggested text. > >> > >> In addition, we were unable to find "Combined DM+LM" in RFC 6374 as > seen in > >> the third example. Should this be updated to "combined LM/DM message" > as > >> used in RFC 6374? > >> > >> <RG> Yes. > >> > >> > >> Original: > >> As defined in [RFC6374], MPLS Delay Measurement (DM) query and > >> response messages use the Associated Channel Header (ACH) (value > >> 0x000C for delay measurement) [RFC6374], which identifies the message > >> type and the message payload as defined in Section 3.2 [RFC6374] > >> following the ACH. > >> > >> As defined in [RFC6374], MPLS LM query and response messages use the > >> Associated Channel Header (ACH) (value 0x000A for direct loss > >> measurement or value 0x000B for inferred loss measurement), which > >> identifies the message type and the message payload defined in > >> Section 3.1 [RFC6374] following the ACH. > >> > >> As defined in [RFC6374], Combined DM+LM query and response messages > >> use the Associated Channel Header (ACH) (value 0x000D for direct loss > >> and delay measurement or value 0x000E for inferred loss and delay > >> measurement), which identifies the message type and the message > >> payload defined in Section 3.3 [RFC6374] following the ACH. > >> > >> Perhaps: > >> As defined in [RFC6374], MPLS Delay Measurement (DM) query and > response > >> messages use the Associated Channel Header (ACH) (with the value > 0x000C > >> for delay measurement). This value identifies the message type and the > >> message payload that follow the ACH, as defined in Section 3.2 of > >> [RFC6374]. > >> > >> As defined in [RFC6374], MPLS LM query and response messages use the > ACH > >> (with the value 0x000A for direct loss measurement or the value > 0x000B > >> for inferred loss measurement). This value identifies the message > type > >> and the message payload that follow the ACH, as defined in Section > 3.1 > >> of [RFC6374]. > >> > >> As defined in [RFC6374], combined DM+LM query and response messages > use > >> the ACH (with the value 0x000D for direct loss and delay measurement > or > >> the value 0x000E for inferred loss and delay measurement). This value > >> identifies the message type and the message payload that follows the > >> ACH, as defined in Section 3.3 of [RFC6374]. > >> > >> --> > >> <RG> Ok. Except DM+LM to be changed to LM/DM as suggested. > >> > >> > >> 13) <!-- [rfced] In the instances below, we have adjusted "for > accounting > >> received traffic". Please review to ensure these changes do not alter > your > >> meaning. > >> > >> Original: > >> The Path Segment Identifier (PSID) [RFC9545] MUST be carried in the > >> received data packet for the traffic flow under measurement for > >> accounting received traffic on the egress node of the SR-MPLS Policy. > >> > >> Different values of PSID can be used per Candidate-Path for accounting > >> received traffic to measure packet loss at the Candidate- Path level. > >> > >> Current: > >> The Path Segment Identifier (PSID) [RFC9545] MUST be carried in the > >> received data packet for the traffic flow under measurement, in order > to > >> account for received traffic on the egress node of the SR-MPLS Policy. > >> > >> Different values of the PSID can be used per Candidate-Path to > account > >> for received traffic and to measure packet loss at the Candidate-Path > >> level. > >> --> > >> <RG> Ok > >> > >> > >> 14) <!-- [rfced] In the text below, does "while" mean "at the same > time", > >> or does it represent a contrast (like "whereas" or "on the other hand")? > >> > >> Original: > >> The LM query and response messages defined in [RFC6374] are used to > >> measure packet loss for the block of data packets transmitted with > >> the previous marking while data packets carry alternate marking. > >> > >> Perhaps: > >> The LM query and response messages defined in [RFC6374] are used to > >> measure packet loss for the block of data packets transmitted with > the > >> previous marking, whereas data packets carry alternate marking. > >> --> > >> <RG> Ok > >> > >> > >> > >> 15) <!-- [rfced] FYI - The quoted text below appears differently in RFC > >> 9341. We have updated to match RFC 9341. > >> > >> Original: > >> "The assumption of the block number mechanism is that the measurement > >> nodes are time synchronized" as specified in Section 4.3 of [RFC9341] > >> is not necessary, as the block number on the responder can be > >> synchronized based on the received LM query messages. > >> > >> Current: > >> Section 4.3 of [RFC9341] specifies: "The assumption of this BN > >> mechanism is that the measurement nodes are time synchronized." > However, > >> this is not necessary, as the block number on the responder can be > >> synchronized based on the received LM query messages. > >> > >> --> > >> > >> <RG> Ok > >> > >> > >> 16) <!-- [rfced] Is "LSE" singular or plural in the text below? > >> > >> Original: > >> The MPLS Label Stack contains a list of 32-bit LSE that includes a > >> 20-bit label value, 8-bit TTL value, 3-bit TC value, and 1-bit EOS > >> (S) field. > >> > >> Perhaps (LSE is plural): > >> The MPLS Label Stack contains a list of 32-bit LSEs that each include > a > >> 20-bit label value, an 8-bit TTL value, a 3-bit TC value, and a 1-bit > >> EOS (S) field. > >> > >> --> > >> <RG> Ok > >> > >> > >> > >> 17) <!-- [rfced] We have removed "TLV" from the Descriptions to align > with > >> the IANA registries <https://www.iana.org/assignments/g-ach-parameters>. > > >> Please let us know any corrections. > >> > >> Original: > >> | TBA1 | Return Path TLV | This document | > >> | TBA2 | Block Number TLV | This document | > >> > >> Current: > >> | 5 | Return Path | RFC 9779 | > >> | 6 | Block Number | RFC 9779 | > >> --> > >> <RG> Ok > >> > >> > >> > >> 18) <!-- [rfced] Should the registry name be plural? Note that we will > ask > >> IANA to update their registry if this change is accepted. > >> > >> Current: Return Path Sub-TLV Type > >> Perhaps: Return Path Sub-TLV Types > >> --> > >> <RG> Yes > >> > >> > >> 19) <!-- [rfced] Much of this text duplicates what appears in the > table. > >> Perhaps the text should just indicate that the code points are assigned > as > >> defined in Table 2? > >> > >> Section 12: > >> All code points in the range 0 through 175 in this registry > >> shall be allocated according to the "IETF Review" procedure as > >> specified in [RFC8126]. Code points in the range 176 through 239 in > >> this registry shall be allocated according to the "First Come, First > >> Served" procedure as specified in [RFC8126]. Remaining code points > >> are allocated according to Table 2: > >> > >> Table 2: > >> | Value | Description | Reference | > >> +===========+=========================+===============+ > >> | 1 - 175 | IETF Review | This document | > >> | 176 - 239 | First Come First Served | This document | > >> | 240 - 251 | Experimental Use | This document | > >> | 252 - 254 | Private Use | This document | > >> --> > >> <RG> Agree to change to: > >> > >> The code points are allocated according to Table 2: > >> > >> > >> 20) <!-- [rfced] Would it make sense to refer to the MPLS Review Team > >> (assuming that is correct), as we are unsure what MPLS-RT refers to and > we > >> are unable to find information about it. > >> > >> Original: > >> Thanks to Huaimo Chen, Yimin Shen, and Xufeng Liu for MPLS-RT expert > >> review, ... > >> --> > >> <RG> Perhaps > >> > >> Thanks to Huaimo Chen, Yimin Shen, and Xufeng Liu for MPLS expert > >> review, ... > >> > >> > >> 21) <!-- [rfced] [IEEE802.1AX] references the 2008 version of this IEEE > >> Standard. May we update this reference to use the current standard > from > >> 2020 as seen in the following URL: < > https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9105034>? > >> > >> --> > >> <RG> Yes > >> > >> > >> 22) <!-- [rfced] We removed the quotes around Control Code throughout > to > >> align with use in RFC 6374. We have also removed the quotes and > >> capitalized "in-band response requested" and "out-of-band response > >> requested" to match what appears in RFC 6374 and the IANA registry. > Please > >> review and let us know if corrections are needed. > >> --> > >> <RG> Ok > >> > >> 23) <!-- [rfced] Please review the following changes and questions > >> regarding the terms used in this document: > >> > >> a) RFC 8402 uses "node-SID" and "Anycast-SID" rather than "node SID" and > >> "Anycast SID". May we update these to match the usage from RFC 8402? > >> > >> <RG> Yes. > >> > >> b) We note different capitalization of label stack vs. Label Stack. We > believe the lowercase "label stack" is used in general text, but "Label > Stack" is capitalized when it refers to the the TLV. Please confirm that > MPLS Label Stack is capitalized correctly in the following: > >> > >> Original: > >> The MPLS Label Stack contains a list of 32-bit LSE that includes a > >> 20-bit label value, 8-bit TTL value, 3-bit TC value, and 1-bit EOS > >> (S) field. An MPLS Label Stack Sub-TLV may carry a stack of labels > >> or a Binding SID label [RFC8402] of the Return SR-MPLS Policy. > >> --> > >> <RG> Perhaps > >> > >> The MPLS label stack contains a list of 32-bit LSE that includes a > >> 20-bit label value, 8-bit TTL value, 3-bit TC value, and 1-bit EOS > >> (S) field. An MPLS Label Stack Sub-TLV may carry a stack of labels > >> or a Binding SID label [RFC8402] of the Return SR-MPLS Policy. > >> > >> > >> > >> 24) <!-- [rfced] Please review the following questions and changes > >> regarding the abbreviations used in this document. > >> > >> a) Per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"), abbreviations > should be > >> expanded upon first use. Is "EOS" in the text below an abbreviation? If > so, > >> how may it be expanded? > >> > >> 1-bit EOS (S) field > >> > >> <RG> Perhaps: > >> > >> 1-bit End of Stack (S) field > >> > >> b) FYI - We have expanded the abbreviation below. Please review to > >> ensure correctness. > >> > >> Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) > >> > >> --> > >> <RG> Ok > >> > >> 25) <!-- [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. > >> > >> --> > >> > >> <RG> Believe the document is ok. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Rakesh > >> > >> > >> > >> Thank you. > >> > >> RFC Editor > >> > >> > >> > >> On Apr 16, 2025, at 3:52 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > >> > >> *****IMPORTANT***** > >> > >> Updated 2025/04/16 > >> > >> 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/rfc9779.xml > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.html > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.pdf > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779.txt > >> > >> Diff file of the text: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-diff.html > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-rfcdiff.html (side by > side) > >> > >> Diff of the XML: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9779-xmldiff1.html > >> > >> > >> Tracking progress > >> ----------------- > >> > >> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9779 > >> > >> Please let us know if you have any questions. > >> > >> Thank you for your cooperation, > >> > >> RFC Editor > >> > >> -------------------------------------- > >> RFC9779 (draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sr-17) > >> > >> Title : Performance Measurement for Segment Routing Networks > with MPLS Data Plane > >> Author(s) : R. Gandhi, C. Filsfils, D. Voyer, S. Salsano, M. Chen > >> WG Chair(s) : Nicolai Leymann, Tarek Saad, Tony Li > >> > >> Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter Van de Velde > >> > >> > > > >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
