Re: [auth48] AD - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9435 <draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-13> for your review (round 2)

[Martin Duke <[e-mail]>]

(S4.2.1)
You changed "greater than 48 decimal (0x30)" to "greater than 48 decimals
(0x30)"

This means "48 in decimal notation" so 48 decimals is definitely wrong. I
understood the original perfectly well, but if there must be a change here
it would be better to say "48 in decimal notation (0x30)" or simply "(0x30)"

(S5.4)
OLD: Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF)
NEW: MEF Forum (MEF)
????!!!????




On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 1:54 AM Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hello Alice!
>
> Please see below:
>
> On 07/07/2023 00:35, Alice Russo wrote:
>
> Gorry and Martin (as AD),
>
> Martin,
> Please review and let us know if you approve the changes listed below.
> They are also visible in this diff file:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9435-auth48diff.html
>
> - Section 3.1: text added re: Best Effort and CS0.
> - Sections 6.2, 6.2.1, and 6.3: one sentence added at start of each.
> - Figures 2, 3, and 5: new titles.
>
> The last 2 are per "cross-area INT review":
> - Section 4: added text defining unknown DSCP and unexpected DSCP.
> - Section 5.1.1: sentence deleted. ("This aligned with the now deprecated
> use of CS1 as the codepoint for the Lower Effort service, as previously
> specified in [RFC4594].")
> --
>
> Gorry,
> Thank you for your reply. Please see the follow-ups below. The revised
> files are here (please refresh):
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9435.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9435.txt
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9435.pdf
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9435.xml
>
> This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9435-diff.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9435-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>
> This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9435-auth48diff.html
>
> Re: #6  ("being re-marked to 'x' & 0x07 and then forwarded")
>
> GF: I'd prefer to NOT change.  The ampersand here represents a "bit-wise
> and". If this does need to be clarified please propose something.
>
>
> Thanks for clarifying. In RFCs, we see it written out as "bitwise AND".
> Below are examples of how it has been defined in some recentish RFCs.
> Perhaps add ("&" represents the bitwise AND operator) after the sentence?
>
> *rfc6225.txt**:**   "&" is a **bitwise AND*
> *rfc7188.txt**:**   where "bitand" denotes a **bitwise AND*
> *rfc8439.txt**:**   Where "&=" is the C language **bitwise AND**
> assignment operator.*
> *rfc8554.txt**:**      AND : a AND b denotes the **bitwise AND** of the
> two nonnegative*
> *rfc8881.txt**:**   ("&" represents the **bitwise AND** operator)*
> *rfc9189.txt**:**   i & j     **bitwise AND** of unsigned integers i and
> j.*
>
> * Re: #6  ("being re-marked to 'x' & 0x07 and then forwarded")
>
> The proposed resolution is to add a definition to the end of section 2 to
> define'&':
> NEW:
> In this document, the symbol "&" denotes a bitwise AND of two unsigned
> values.
>
> ---
>
>
> Re: #11, we updated the figure titles as requested, but the question was
> actually about tables.
>
> * We suggest the best way to address the question regarding the table
> headings is to add text below the first use of the table, as below:
> OLD:
>    The DSCP space is shown in the following table.
> NEW:
>    The DSCP space is shown in the following table. Each row corresponds to
> one setting of the the first three bits of the DSCP field and each column
> to one setting of the the last three bits of the DSCP field.
>
> ---
>
> Specifically, should there be any column or row labels added to Table 2 or
> 3?
>
> Re:
>
> We could add a title row above the bit pattern with the bit number within
> the DS field:
>
> ADD NEW:
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+
> |7|6|5|4|3|2|1|0|
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+
> | ...
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>
> We added this bit ruler, but it's longer than the bits provided; please
> tell us how Figures 2, 3, and 5 should be updated.
>
> * Sorry!!! The following were a result of requested changes, but were
> incorrect, can you please update as shown below:
>
> Figure 2 (This should be a 6b field):
>
> OLD:
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+
> |7|6|5|4|3|2|1|0|
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+
> |0 0 0|x x x|
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+
> NEW:
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+
> |5|4|3|2|1|0|
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+
> |0 0 0|x x x|
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>
> Figure 3 (This should be a 6b field):
> OLD:
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+
> |7|6|5|4|3|2|1|0|
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+
> |0 0 1|x x x|
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
> NEW:
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+
> |5|4|3|2|1|0|
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+
> |0 0 0|x x x|
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
> Figure 4 (This should be consistent with 2,3 as a 6b field):
>
> OLD:
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+
> |x x x|. . .|
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+
> NEW:
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+
> |5|4|3|2|1|0|
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+
> |x x x|. . .|
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
> Figure 5:
> OLD:
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+
> |7|6|5|4|3|2|1|0|
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+
> |x x x|0 0 0|
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+
> NEW:
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+
> |5|4|3|2|1|0|
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+
> |x x x|0 0 0|
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>
> Re:
>
> 1. An updated citation for  [IEEE.802.11] is: [...]  802.11-2016
>
>
> Updated as requested. FYI, the page says it was superseded by 802.11-2020.
> Please let us know if you want to update the reference to that.
>
> * - Yes please update.
>
> We will wait to hear from you again and from your coauthors
> before continuing the publication process. This page shows
> the AUTH48 status of your document:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9435
>
> Thank you.
> RFC Editor/ar
>
> * After cross-checking your uypdated text with the RFCs and IEE spec, we
> would like to consistently use the IEEE usage of the term AC. We understand
> that the use of "Access Classes" in RFC8325 is less correct, and was
> inconsistent in that RFC, so please update as follows:
>
> OLD
> The IEEE 802.11 standards [IEEE-802.11] provide Media Access Control (MAC)
> functions to support QoS in WLANs using Access Classes (AC).
> NEW:
> The IEEE 802.11 standards [IEEE-802.11] provide Media Access Control (MAC)
> functions to support QoS in WLANs using Access Categories (ACs).
> ---
> * The following requested change was actually ambiguous  (sorry) as to
> whether all bits were set to 1 or the combined field had a value of 1.
> Please change:
> OLD:
> This considers a proposed DSCP where the least significant 3 bits have a
> value of 1.
>
> NEW:
> This considers a proposed DSCP where the least significant 3 bits together
> represent a value of 1 (i.e., 0b001).
> ---
>
> Please could you also correct some typos:
>
> * Please insert /the/:
> OLD:
>  defined by IETF,
> NEW:
>  defined by the IETF,
> ---
> * Two use of the word /new/ in the same sentence seems more than needed in
> the abstract, the new part is the DSCP assignment:
>
> OLD:
> This document discusses considerations for assigning a new recommended
> Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) for a new standard Per-Hop
> Behavior (PHB).
> NEW:
> This document discusses considerations for assigning a new recommended
> Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) for a standard Per-Hop Behavior
> (PHB).
>
> ---
>
> Thanks for preparing this document. All the editors have now read the text
> and we expect to approve the next version after we confirm these updates.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Gorry
>
>
> On Jul 4, 2023, at 5:31 AM, Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Thank you we have now reviewed your changes, we were quite impressed at
> the level of attention to detail.
>
> Please see our comments and replies marked "GF", and some additional
> requests at the end.
>
> We plan to complete a full review and approve this, once these changes
> have been implemented.
> Best wishes,
> Gorry
>
> ====
>
> Authors,
>
> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary)
> the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>
> 1) <!-- [rfced] FYI, the title of the document has been updated as follows.
>
> Original: Considerations for Assigning a new Recommended DiffServ Codepoint
> (DSCP)
>
> Current: Considerations for Assigning a New Recommended Differentiated
> Services Code Point (DSCP)
> -->
>
> GF: Works for me.
>
> 2) <!-- [rfced] FYI: Repeated references
>
> a) Since "[RFC2474]" was cited twice in this sentence, and no other
> citation was present, we placed it at the end of the sentence.
>
> Original:
> It provides differentiated traffic forwarding
> based on the DiffServ Code Point (DSCP) [RFC2474] carried in the
> DiffServ field [RFC2474] of the IP packet header.
>
> Current:
> It provides differentiated traffic forwarding
> based on the DSCP carried in the Diffserv field of the IP packet header
> [RFC2474].
>
> GF: Works for me.
>
> b) Similarly, since "[RFC4594]" was cited twice in this sentence, we
> placed this reference at the end of the sentence.
>
> Original:
> DiffServ associates traffic with a service class [RFC4594] and
> categorises it into Behavior Aggregates [RFC4594].
> Suggested:
> Diffserv associates traffic with a service class and
> categorizes it into Behavior Aggregates [RFC4594]. -->
>
> GF: Works for me.
>
> 3) <!-- [rfced] FYI, we have updated this text to:
> - cite RFC 2474 because it's the source of the quote, and
> - change "standards" to "standardized" to match the source, and
> - include the phrase "if Pool 1 is ever exhausted" because it's in the
> source.
> Please let us know if you prefer otherwise.
>
> Original:
> This was initially available for experimental (EXP) or Local Use
> (LU), but was originally specified to be "preferentially utilized
> for standards assignments" if Pool 1 is ever exhausted.
> Current:
> This was initially available for Experimental (EXP) Use or Local Use
> (LU), but was originally specified to be "preferentially utilized
> for standardized assignments if Pool 1 is ever exhausted" [RFC2474]. -->
>
> GF: Works for me.
>
> 4) <!-- [rfced] Please note that the quoted text does not appear in RFC
> 8436. Please review and let us know how this may be updated.
> Perhaps you intended the "NEW" text in Section 3 of RFC 8436
> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8436#section-3)?
>
> Original:
> Pool 3
> codepoints are now "utilized for standards assignments and are no
> longer available for assignment to experimental or local use"
> [RFC8436].
> Perhaps:
> Pool 3
> codepoints are now "utilized for standardized assignments (replacing
> the previous availability for experimental or local use)" [RFC8436]. -->
>
> GF: Works for me.
>
> 5) <!-- [rfced] Regarding Table 2 references:
>
> a) Neither "Best Effort" nor "CS0" is mentioned in RFC 2474. How should
> the second row be updated?
>
> GF: Correct - but Class Selector mapping is - this is confusing. A
> sentence or two here would be better to explain these rather complicated
> equivalent words.
>
> OLD:
>
> *BE (Best Effort),* also known as* "CS0",* describes the default forwarding treatment.
>
> NEW:
> The Default PHB is defined in section 4.1 of [RFC2474]. This provides Best
> Effort (BE) forwarding, and the recommended DSCP of  *'000000' *(section
> 4.2.2.1  of [RFC2474]). This
> is the lowest value in the set of Class Selector (CS) DSCPs, and hence is
> also known as "CS0" [
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/dscp-registry/dscp-registry.xhtml].
>
> GF: I realise this may also move the definition of CS earlier, please
> check and correct.
>
> b) "Voice Admit" nor "VA" appears in RFC 5865.
> How should it be updated?
>
> GF: RFC 5865 uses "VOICE-ADMIT" as the name
> GF: It seems industry uses VA as an abbreivation, I'd like to propose we
> keep this (see also below on a caption change).
>
> Perhaps it refers to Call Admission Control?
> GF: No: This is not the same thing.
>
> Current:
> + - + - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - +
> | CS | Class Selector | [RFC2474] |
> + - + - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - +
> | BE | Best Effort (CS0) | [RFC2474] |
> + - + - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - +
> | AF | Assured Forwarding | [RFC2597] |
> + - + - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - +
> | EF | Expedited Forwarding | [RFC3246] |
> + - + - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - +
> | VA | Voice Admit | [RFC5865] |
> + - + - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - +
> | LE | Lower Effort | [RFC8622] |
> + - + - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - + -->
>
> GF: There is no reason to say "Used in Published RFCs", although that was
> the goal, so I suggest:
>
> OLD:
> Table 2: Summary of the DSCP Abbreviations Used in Published RFCs
>
> NEW:
>
> Table 2: Abbreviations for DSCPs and PHB Groups
>
>
>
> 6) <!--[rfced] Regarding use of ampersand in Section 4.2.1, may it be
> replaced with "and" or is the symbol preferred?
>
> Original:
> ... result in the DSCP being re-marked to 'x' & 0x07 and then forwarded
> using the PHB specified...
>
> Perhaps:
> ... result in the DSCP being re-marked to 'x' and 0x07 and then forwarded
> using the PHB specified...
> -->
> GF: I'd prefer to NOT change.  The ampersand here represents a "bit-wise
> and". If this does need to be
> clarified please propose something.
>
> 7) <!-- [rfced] What do "Section 5.1.2" and "Section 4.1" refer to -
> sections within RFC 8325, IEEE 802.11 UP, or this RFC?
> Original:
> RFC8325 [RFC8325] notes inconsistencies that can result from such re-
> marking, and recommends a different mapping to perform this re-
> marking, dependent on the direction in which a packet is forwarded.
> It provides recommendations for mapping a DSCP to an IEEE 802.11 UP
> for interconnection between wired and wireless networks. The
> recommendation in Section 5.1.2 maps network control traffic, CS6 and
> CS7, as well as unassigned DSCPs, to UP 0 when forwarding in the
> upstream direction (wireless-to-wired). It also recommends mapping
> CS6 and CS7 traffic to UP 7, when forwarding in the downstream
> direction (Section 4.1).
>
> Perhaps as follows?
> - Section 5.1.2 of this document ("Mapping Specified for IEEE 802.11")
> - Section 4.1 of RFC 8325 ("Network Control Traffic")
> -->
>
> GF: This works for me.
>
> 8) <!--[rfced] Regarding Table 5, should the header be updated
> as follows or otherwise? The term "Aggregate Class" does not appear in RFC
> 8100. Should it be defined within this document?
>
> Original:
> | RFC8100 | DSCP | | Agg. Class | |
> Perhaps:
> | Treatment Aggregate [RFC8100] | DSCP |
>
> GF: This works for me.
>
> Similarly, regarding Table 6, should the header be updated as follows or
> otherwise? We note that GSMA IR.34 lists the four "UMTS QoS classes" in
> Section 6.2.1. The term "Aggregate Class" does not appear in IR.34.
>
> Original:
> | GSMA IR.34 | PHB | | Agg. Class | |
> Perhaps:
> | QoS Class in [GSMA-IR.34] | PHB |
> -->
>
> GF: This works for me.
>
> 9) <!-- [rfced] To more clearly indicate the forwarding direction, may we
> update
> the hyphens to "to" in the following?
>
> Original:
> A provider service path may consist of sections where multiple and
> changing layers use their own code points to determine differentiated
> forwarding (e.g., IP - MPLS - IP - Ethernet - Wi-Fi).
>
> Suggested:
> A provider service path may consist of sections where multiple and
> changing layers use their own code points to determine differentiated
> forwarding (e.g., IP to MPLS to IP to Ethernet to Wi-Fi).
> -->
>
> GF: This seems good.
>
> 10) <!--[rfced] Will the use of ampersand in the title of Section 6.2.1 be
> clear to readers? Would it be more clear to write the meaning in prose?
>
> Original:
> 6.2. Where the proposed DSCP > 0x07 (7)
> 6.2.1. Where the proposed DSCP&0x07=0x01
> 6.3. Where the proposed DSCP <= 0x07 (7)
> -->
>
> GF: I'm unsure I want to changge.
> GF: I do suggest we add one sentence after each subsection heading clarify
> this:
>
> 6.2. Where the proposed DSCP > 0x07 (7)
> ADD NEW:
> This considers a proposed DSCP with a codepoint larger than 7.
>
> 6.2.1. Where the proposed DSCP&0x07=0x01
> ADD NEW:
> This considers a proposed DSCP where the least significant 3 bits have a
> value of 1.
>
> 6.3. Where the proposed DSCP <= 0x07 (7)
> ADD NEW:
> This considers a proposed DSCP where the DSCP is less than or equal to 7.
>
>
> 11) <!-- [rfced] Table Headers
>
> a) In Tables 1, 3, and 4, there's an identical line (Tables 1 and 3, last
> row; Table 4, top row). Should this row be in a consistent location
> of each table (e.g., the top row)?
>
> Identical row:
> + - - - + - - + - + - + - + - + - + - +
> | 0/CS0 | 1/LE | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
> + - - - + - - + - + - + - + - + - + - +
>
> GF: No: This seems a nice idea, but the row ordering is significant, and
> this corresponds
> to the lowest set of numerical values and belongs at the bottom of tables
> 1,3.
>
> b) For Tables 2, 5, and 6, please consider whether any labels should be
> added to the columns or rows so that it's clearer to the reader what the
> table contains.
> -->
> GF: Please include 3 in this list, it's the same format
> For Tables 2,3,5
>
> We could add a title row above the bit pattern with the bit number within
> the DS field:
>
> ADD NEW:
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+
> |7|6|5|4|3|2|1|0|
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+
> | ...
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
> GF: In addition, I think it would be clearer if the legend explained in
> each case that this was the D
>
> OLD:
> Figure 2: Bleaching of the ToS Precedence
> NEW:
> Figure 2: Bits in the Diffserv field modified by bleaching of the ToS
> Precedence
>
> OLD:
> Figure 3: ToS Precedence Re-marking
> NEW:
> Figure 3: Bits in the Diffserv field modified by ToS Precedence Re-marking
>
> OLD:
> Figure 5: Observed Re-marking Behavior Resulting from Deriving from
> UP-to-DSCP Mapping in Some 802.11 Networks
> NEW:
> Figure 5: Bits in the Diffserv field modified by Re-marking Observed as a
> Result of UP-to-DSCP Mapping in Some 802.11 Networks
>
> 12) <!-- [rfced] Terminology
>
> a) Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used
> inconsistently. May we update to the version on the right?
>
> ToS Precedence bleaching vs. ToS Precedence Bleaching
> ToS precedence field vs. ToS Precedence field
>
> GF: Please do update as you suggest.
>
> b) We see that "Traffic Class" and "traffic class" along with the acronym
> "TC"
> are used throughout the document. Would you like to expand the first
> instance
> of these and then use the acronyms in the remainder of the document? Or do
> you prefer the current usage?
>
> GF: Ah, good question. These are various things with the same name, and I
> think these are mostly correct:
>
> GF: No CHANGE: The term "traffic class", in section 5 is ok
> GF: No CHANGE: The term "traffic class", lower case, in section 5.1 is not
> related to MPLS and should remain in lower case.
> GF: No CHANGE: The term "traffic class", lower case, in section 5.2 does
> relate to MPLS.
>
> GF: No CHANGE: The term "traffic class", lower case, in section 5.3 is not
> related to MPLS and should remain in lower case.
>
>
> GF: PLEASE DO UPDATE: The term "traffic class", in section 6.2.1 could
> potentially be confused, and would be better as "PHB":
> OLD:
> demoting the traffic to the Lower Effort traffic class.
> NEW:
> demoting the traffic to the Lower Effort PHB.
>
> c) To avoid confusion with "Access Classes (AC)", may we make "Access
> Categories" lowercase?
>
> Original:
> Then, in turn, this is mapped
> to the four Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM) Access Categories.
> Perhaps:
> Then, in turn, this is mapped
> to the four Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM) access categories.
>
> GF: Good note, please go ahead and do this.
>
> d) FYI, we have added expansions for abbreviations upon first use. Please
> review each expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness.
>
> DSCP - Differentiated Services Code Point
> EF - Expedited Forwarding
> EXP - updated "experimental" to "Experimental" per RFC 8126
> IPX - IP Packet eXchange
> LSR - updated "Label-Switched Router" to "Label Switching Router" per
> published RFCs
> LU - updated "local use" to "Local Use" per RFC 8126
> MAC - Media Access Control
> MEF - updated "Metro Ethernet Forum" to "MEF Forum"
> PDB - updated "Per Domain Behavior" to "Per-Domain Behavior" like
> "Per-Hop" in PHB
> P-GW - updated "Packet Gateway" to "Packet Data Network Gateway"
> UMTS - Universal Mobile Telecommunications System
> -->
>
> GF: These changes are all good.
>
> 13) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in this document
> should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container for
> content that is semantically less important or tangential to the content
> that surrounds it" (https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside).
> -->
>
> GF: I am not aware of any content of this type.
>
> 14) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the
> online Style Guide
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
> and let us know if any changes are needed.
>
> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should
> still be reviewed as a best practice.
> -->
>
> GF: We plan to review the entire text bvefore we approve and we will
> review this at this next stage
>
> Thank you.
>
> RFC Editor/st/ar
>
> GF: We have some very late cross-area INT review comments that it was
> suggested we incorporate at this stage:
>
> 1. An updated citation for  [IEEE.802.11] is:
>
> IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Information technology -
> Telecommunications and information exchange between
> systems - Local and metropolitan area networks - Specific
> requirements - Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control
> (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications",
> IEEE 802.11, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2016.7786995, December
> 2016, https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/8802-11/10034/802.11/5536/.
>
> 2. s/exchange point/diffserv domain boundary/ in Section 4
> OLD:
> and agreements between providers at an exchange point
> NEW:
> and agreements between providers at a diffserv domain boundary
>
>  3. Please remove the following sentence: This aligned with the now
> deprecated use of
> CS1 as the codepoint for the lower effort service, as previously specified
> in [RFC4594].
> DELETE:
> This aligned with the now deprecated use of CS1 as the codepoint for the
> Lower Effort service, as previously specified in [RFC4594].
>
> 4. Explain "unknown" using our agreed text:
> OLD:
> The treatment of packets that are marked with an unknown or an unexpected
> DSCP at Diffserv domain boundaries is determined by the policy for a
> Diffserv domain
> NEW:
> A packet that arrives with a DSCP that is not associated with a PHB,
> results in an “unknown DSCP”. A node could receive a packet with an
> "Unexpected DSCP" due to misconfiguration, or because there is no
> consistent policy in place. The treatment of packets that are marked with
> an unknown or an unexpected DSCP at Diffserv domain boundaries is
> determined by the policy for a Diffserv domain.
>
> ===
>
> Thanks!
>
> On Jul 3, 2023, [e-mail] wrote:
>
> *****IMPORTANT*****
>
> Updated 2023/07/03
>
> 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>
> <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
>
> * [e-mail] (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).
>
> * [e-mail], 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,
> [e-mail] 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/rfc9435.xml
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9435.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9435.pdf
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9435.txt
>
> Diff file of the text:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9435-diff.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9435-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>
> Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9435-xmldiff1.html
>
> The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own diff
> files of the XML.
> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9435.original.v2v3.xml
> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
> only: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9435.form.xml
>
>
> Tracking progress
> -----------------
>
> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9435
>
> Please let us know if you have any questions.
> Thank you for your cooperation,
>
> RFC Editor
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC9435 (draft-ietf-tsvwg-dscp-considerations-13)
>
> Title : Considerations for Assigning a New Recommended Differentiated
> Services Codepoint (DSCP)
> Author(s) : A. Custura, G. Fairhurst, R. Secchi
> WG Chair(s) : Gorry Fairhurst, Marten Seemann
> Area Director(s) : Martin Duke, Zaheduzzaman Sarker
>
> ===
>
>
>
>