[auth48] Fwd: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9426 <draft-irtf-nwcrg-bats-07> for your review

[Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>]

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: "Dr. Yang Shenghao (SSE)" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9426 <draft-irtf-nwcrg-bats-07> for your review
> Date: June 19, 2023 at 4:45:13 PM PDT
> To: Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Vincent Roca <[e-mail]>, auth48archive <[e-mail]>, "RFC Errata System" <[e-mail]>
> 
> Dear all, 
> 
> Attached is the response, which has been discussed with the other authors as well.
> 
> 
> Shenghao
> 
>> On 20 Jun 2023, at 05:44, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> 
>> This is a friendly reminder that we await answers to the questions sent on 6/5/2023 and your review of the document before continuing with the publication process. Please let us know if we can be of assistance as you begin the AUTH48 review process.
>> 
>> The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9426 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9426>
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> RFC Editor/ap
>> 
>>> On Jun 12, 2023, at 10:11 AM, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Greetings,
>>> 
>>> We do not believe we have heard from you regarding this document's readiness
>>> for publication.  Please review our previous messages describing the AUTH48
>>> process and containing any document-specific questions we may have had.
>>> 
>>> We will wait to hear from you before continuing with the publication process.
>>> 
>>> The AUTH48 status page for this document is located here:
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9426 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9426>
>>> 
>>> Thank you,
>>> RFC Editor/ap
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Jun 5, 2023, at 10:28 PM, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Authors,
>>>> 
>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the
>>>> following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>>>> 
>>>> 1) <!--[rfced] Please ensure that the guidelines listed in Section 2.1 of RFC
>>>> 5743
>>>> have been adhered to in this document.  -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 2) <!--[rfced] Please note the title of the document has been updated as
>>>> follows. Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC
>>>> Style Guide").
>>>> Please review.
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> BATS Coding Scheme for Multi-hop Data Transport
>>>> 
>>>> Current:
>>>> BATched Sparse (BATS) Coding Scheme for Multi-hop Data Transport
>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 3) <!--[rfced] John, would you like to update your author information?
>>>> If so, please provide the updated information. We note that
>>>> National Chiao Tung University (NCTU) has become
>>>> National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University (NYCU).
>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 4) <!--[rfced] Are the terms "data delivery process" or "Data Delivery
>>>> Procedures" interchangeable with "Data Delivery Protocol"?
>>>> If so, please consider whether the acronym "DDP" should be used, as it
>>>> is defined in Section 2.
>>>> 
>>>> Original (Section 2.1):
>>>> We describe a data delivery process that involves one source node,
>>>> one destination node, and multiple intermediate nodes in between.
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> 2.2.  Data Delivery Procedures
>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] FYI, we have used the <sup> element for superscript in this
>>>> document.
>>>> Please review and let us know if further updates are needed.
>>>> 
>>>> Note: In the HTML and PDF, it appears as superscript. In the text output, <sup>
>>>> generates a^b.
>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 6) <!--[rfced] We note that the spacing of equations is inconsistent within this
>>>> document. May we include spaces to make them consistent and improve readability?
>>>> 
>>>> For example:
>>>> Original:
>>>> Let P = K*T-F denote the number of padding octets.
>>>> 
>>>> Perhaps:
>>>> Let P = K * T - F denote the number of padding octets.
>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 7) <!--[rfced] We see a number of author-inserted comments in the XML file for
>>>> this document. We are unsure if these have been resolved. Please review
>>>> and let us know if these can be deleted or if they need to be addressed.
>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 8) <!--[rfced] For clarity, may we update this sentence as follows
>>>> to remove the first instance of "with"?
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> The DDP MUST
>>>> deliver with each coded packet with its batch ID, which will be
>>>> further used by both recoder and decoder.
>>>> 
>>>> Perhaps:
>>>> DDP MUST
>>>> deliver each coded packet with its batch ID, which will be
>>>> further used by both the recoder and decoder.
>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 9) <!--[rfced] Is it accurate that "DDP" is a type of protocol rather
>>>> than the name of a specific protocol?
>>>> 
>>>> If "DDP" is the name of a specific protocol, we suggest
>>>> removing the definite article. For examples:
>>>> 
>>>> Current: The DDP MUST deliver some of the information ...
>>>> Perhaps: DDP MUST deliver some of the information ...
>>>> 
>>>> Current: The DDP extracts the coded packets ...
>>>> Perhaps: DDP extracts the coded packets ...
>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 10) <!--[rfced] May "DDP protocol version" be updated as follows to avoid
>>>> redundancy? (If expanded, "DDP protocol" would read "Data Delivery Protocol
>>>> protocol".)
>>>> 
>>>> Also, FYI, one instance of "DPP packet" has been corrected to "DDP packet";
>>>> please let us know if that is not accurate.
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> A DDP can form a DDP packet using a coded
>>>> packet by adding necessary information that can help to deliver the
>>>> DPP packet to the next node, e.g., the DDP protocol version,
>>>> addresses and session identifiers.
>>>> 
>>>> Perhaps:
>>>> A DDP can form a DDP packet using a coded
>>>> packet by adding necessary information that can help to deliver the
>>>> DDP packet to the next node (e.g., the version of the DDP,
>>>> addresses, and session identifiers).
>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 11) <!--[rfced] Please clarify the "/" in "point-to-point/one-hop".
>>>> Does it mean "or"?
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> A BATS coding scheme is suitable for high data load
>>>> delivery in such networks without the requirement that the point-to-
>>>> point/one-hop communication is highly reliable.
>>>> 
>>>> Perhaps:
>>>> A BATS coding scheme is suitable for high data load
>>>> delivery in such networks without the requirement that the point-to-
>>>> point or one-hop communication is highly reliable.
>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 12) <!--[rfced] We are having some difficulty understanding "same as the payload"
>>>> in the sentence below. Please review and let us know how it should be updated.
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> In these schemes, the
>>>> source node attaches a signature to each packet to transmit, and the
>>>> signature is allowed to be processed by network coding same as the
>>>> payload.
>>>> 
>>>> Perhaps:
>>>> In these schemes, the
>>>> source node attaches a signature to each packet to transmit, and the
>>>> signature is allowed to be processed by network coding in the same
>>>> way as the payload.
>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 13) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "type" attribute of each sourcecode element
>>>> in the XML file to ensure correctness. If the current list of preferred
>>>> values for "type" (https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt <https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt>)
>>>> does not contain an applicable type, then feel free to let us know. Also, it
>>>> is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set.
>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 14) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added the expansion for the following
>>>> abbreviation per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please
>>>> review each expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness.
>>>> 
>>>> Path MTU (PMTU)
>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 15) <!-- [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. For example, please consider
>>>> whether "native" should be updated.
>>>> 
>>>> In addition, please consider whether "traditional" should be updated for clarity.
>>>> While the NIST website
>>>> <https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications-au\ <https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications-au/>
>>>> thor-instructions#table1>
>>>> indicates that this term is potentially biased, it is also ambiguous.
>>>> "Tradition" is a subjective term, as it is not the same for everyone.
>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you.
>>>> 
>>>> RFC Editor/ap/ar
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Jun 5, 2023, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>>> 
>>>> Updated 2023/06/05
>>>> 
>>>> 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/ <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/ <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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc>
>>>> 
>>>>  *  The archive itself:
>>>>     https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ <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] <mailto:[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/rfc9426.xml <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9426.xml>
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9426.html <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9426.html>
>>>> https://ddei3-0-ctp.asiainfo-sec.com:443/wis/clicktime/v1/query?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.rfc%2deditor.org%2fauthors%2frfc9426.pdf&umid=CD413320-FE82-7005-BE56-9E177737B7B8&auth=dc85afdffa75f9bc5357f32e37bf917c5d89a957-be17cfb800b08c85020099c253969ec045953a48 <https://ddei3-0-ctp.asiainfo-sec.com/wis/clicktime/v1/query?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.rfc%2deditor.org%2fauthors%2frfc9426.pdf&umid=CD413320-FE82-7005-BE56-9E177737B7B8&auth=dc85afdffa75f9bc5357f32e37bf917c5d89a957-be17cfb800b08c85020099c253969ec045953a48>
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9426.txt
>>>> 
>>>> Diff file of the text:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9426-diff.html
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9426-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>>>> 
>>>> Diff of the XML: 
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9426-xmldiff1.html
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Tracking progress
>>>> -----------------
>>>> 
>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9426
>>>> 
>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.  
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>>>> 
>>>> RFC Editor
>>>> 
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> RFC9426 (draft-irtf-nwcrg-bats-07)
>>>> 
>>>> Title            : BATS Coding Scheme for Multi-hop Data Transport
>>>> Author(s)        : S. Yang, X. Huang, R. Yeung, J. Zao
>>>> Document Shepherd: V. Roca
>>>> 
>>>