[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 5:49:45 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]>
> 
> We have checked the queries. No further updates.
> 
> Shenghao
> 
>> On 20 Jun 2023, at 08:27, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Shenghao,
>> 
>> Thank you for the updated XML file. We have updated the other files accordingly.
>> 
>> We note that the following queries were not addressed. Please review and let us know if further updates are necessary.
>> 
>>> 1) <!--[rfced] Please ensure that the guidelines listed in Section 2.1 of RFC
>>> 5743
>>> have been adhered to in this document.  -->
>> 
>>> 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.
>>> -->
>> 
>>> 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.
>>> -->
>> 
>>> 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)
>>> -->
>> 
>> 
>> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9426.xml
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9426.txt
>> 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=CBD28397-FE84-B605-90C5-ECCC071DA4EF&auth=dc85afdffa75f9bc5357f32e37bf917c5d89a957-198f6391565c46b5d24905e3e406653a4935771a
>> 
>> The relevant diff files have been posted here:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9426-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9426-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes)
>> 
>> Please review the document carefully and contact us with any further updates you may have.  Note that we do not make changes once a document is published as an RFC.
>> 
>> We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status page below prior to moving this document forward in the publication process.
>> 
>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9426
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> RFC Editor/ap
>> 
>>> On Jun 19, 2023, at 4:45 PM, Dr. Yang Shenghao (SSE) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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]> 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
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> RFC Editor/ap
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jun 12, 2023, at 10:11 AM, Alanna Paloma <[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
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> RFC Editor/ap
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jun 5, 2023, at 10:28 PM, [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)
>>>>>> 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://ddei3-0-ctp.asiainfo-sec.com:443/wis/clicktime/v1/query?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.rfc%2deditor.org%2fauthors%2frfc9426.pdf&umid=CBD28397-FE84-B605-90C5-ECCC071DA4EF&auth=dc85afdffa75f9bc5357f32e37bf917c5d89a957-198f6391565c46b5d24905e3e406653a4935771a
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> <rfc9426-reply.xml>