Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9274 <draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-05> for your review

rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Mon, 18 July 2022 17:33 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
X-Original-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B34AC15A72F; Mon, 18 Jul 2022 10:33:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.661
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.661 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CTE_8BIT_MISMATCH=0.998, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nA4whqIRZaVx; Mon, 18 Jul 2022 10:33:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (rfc-editor.org [50.223.129.200]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F926C13485D; Mon, 18 Jul 2022 10:33:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id 2A1864C087; Mon, 18 Jul 2022 10:33:35 -0700 (PDT)
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, bill.wu@huawei.com
From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, alto-ads@ietf.org, alto-chairs@ietf.org, kaigao@scu.edu.cn, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20220718173335.2A1864C087@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2022 10:33:35 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/2HHJOS6lh4_hfKFuirzM3k3nwdY>
Subject: Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9274 <draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-05> for your review
X-BeenThere: auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Archiving AUTH48 exchanges between the RFC Production Center, the authors, and other related parties" <auth48archive.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/>
List-Post: <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2022 17:33:39 -0000

Authors,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) 
the following questions, which are also in the XML file.

1) <!-- [rfced]  We were unsure if this reference to the ALTO specification was 
referring to the protocol itself or the document RFC 7285.  To clarify, we 
suggest the update described below.  If this is acceptable, we may alter a 
few similar instances throughout the document.

Original:
   The cost mode attribute indicates how costs should be interpreted
   when communicated in the Application-Layer Traffic Optimization
   (ALTO) Protocol [RFC7285].  The base ALTO specification includes a
   provision for only two modes:

Suggested:
   The cost mode attribute indicates how costs should be interpreted
   when communicated as described in "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization
   (ALTO) Protocol" [RFC7285], which includes a provision for only two modes:
-->


2) <!-- [rfced] This document informatively references draft-ietf-alto-path-vector, 
which will move to AUTH48 in the coming weeks.  Please let us know if you would 
like to delay publication of this document so the two can be published together (and 
this document can reference the RFC) or if you would prefer for this document to 
reference draft-ietf-alto-path-vector as a work in progress and be published sooner. 
-->


3) <!-- [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. Note that our script did not flag 
any words or phrases. 
-->


Thank you.

RFC Editor




On Jul 18, 2022, at 10:30 AM, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2022/07/18

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-editor@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/rfc9274.xml
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9274.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9274.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9274.txt

Diff file of the text:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9274-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9274-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9274-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/rfc9274.original.v2v3.xml 

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
only: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9274.form.xml


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9274

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9274 (draft-ietf-alto-cost-mode-05)

Title            : A Cost Mode Registry for the Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol
Author(s)        : M. Boucadair, Q. Wu
WG Chair(s)      : Jan Seedorf, Mohamed Boucadair, Qin Wu
Area Director(s) : Martin Duke, Zaheduzzaman Sarker