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

[[e-mail]]

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)
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>
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\
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] 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/).

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

  *  [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/rfc9426.xml
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9426.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9426.pdf
  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