Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9545 <draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment-22> for your review

[Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>]

Hi Cheng,

Thank you for your reply. Your approval has been noted on the AUTH48 status page:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9545

We will await approvals from Weiqiang, Han, and Royi prior to moving forward with the publication process.

Best regards,
RFC Editor/ap

> On Feb 20, 2024, at 11:36 AM, Cheng Li <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Thank you so much! I am ok with the publication 😊
> 
> Respect 
> Cheng
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 5:55 PM
> To: Cheng Li <[e-mail]>; Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Xipengxiao <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9545 <draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment-22> for your review
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> Rakesh - Thank you for your reply. We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page: 
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9545
> 
> Cheng - Per your request, we’ve removed the Chinese characters from your contact information and reverted it back to how it appeared originally.
> 
> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9545.xml
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9545.txt
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9545.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9545.pdf
> 
> The relevant diff files have been posted here:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9545-diff.html (comprehensive diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9545-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes)
> 
> Once we’ve received approvals from Weiqiang, Han, Cheng, and Royi, we will move this document forward in the publication process.
> 
> Thank you,
> RFC Editor/ap
> 
>> On Feb 19, 2024, at 6:19 AM, Cheng Li <c.l=[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear RFC Editor,
>> After discussion with authors,  we decide to remove my Chinese information, because we have three Chinese authors in the RFC. Sorry for my bother. LOL.
>> If possible, can you please delete my Chinese information?
>> Thanks,
>> Cheng
>>   From: Cheng Li
>> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2024 5:36 PM
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Subject: RE: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9545 
>> <draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment-22> for your review  Dear RFC 
>> Editor,  I have a simple request of adding some non-ACSII contact 
>> information for myself, like the example defined in RFC7997 😊
>> Could you please help to add some additional contact info for me? Just 
>> like  Cheng Li (editor) Huawei Technologies China
>> Email: [e-mail]
>> Additional contact information:
>> 李呈(editor)
>> 华为技术有限公司
>> 中国广东东莞溪村
>> Email: [e-mail]
>>  Where 华为技术有限公司 is the Chinese characters of Huawei Technologies. Thank you so much!
>> It may show in the first page like my info in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9005/, correct?
>> Best wishes,
>> Cheng
>>    From: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <[e-mail]>
>> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2024 3:51 PM
>> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
>> [e-mail]; Cheng Li <[e-mail]>; 
>> [e-mail]
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
>> [e-mail]; DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET 
>> <[e-mail]>; 
>> [e-mail];[e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9545 
>> <draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment-22> for your review  Hello,  
>> Thank you for the careful editing of the document.
>> Please see replies inline with <RG>….
>>  From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>> Date: Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 8:45 PM
>> To: [e-mail] 
>> <[e-mail]>,[e-mail] 
>> <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Rakesh 
>> Gandhi (rgandhi) <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] 
>> <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, 
>> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] 
>> <[e-mail]>, DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET 
>> <[e-mail]>, 
>> [e-mail]<[e-mail]>, 
>> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9545 
>> <draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment-22> for your review Authors,
>> 
>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>> 
>> 1) <!--[rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in 
>> the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
>> 
>> <RG> How about following?
>> Performance Measurement
>> Bidirectional SR Path
>> End-to-End Path Protection
>> 
>> 2) <!--[rfced] How may we adjust the sentence below for clarity? 
>> Specifically, how does "SR-MPLS" relate to the rest of the sentence?
>> 
>> Original: 
>>   In the MPLS data plane SR-MPLS [RFC8660] the SR header is
>>   instantiated through a label stack.
>> 
>> Perhaps: 
>>   In the SR-MPLS data plane [RFC8660], the SR header is
>>   instantiated through a label stack.
>> -->
>> <RG>  How about following?
>> In SR with MPLS data plane [RFC8660], the SR header is
>>   instantiated through a label stack.
>> 
>> 
>> 3) <!--[rfced] Would you like to alphabetize the terms listed in Section 1.2?
>> Or do you prefer the current order?
>> -->
>> 
>> <RG> alphabetize
>> 
>> 4) <!--[rfced] FYI - We have updated the definition of "SR-MPLS" in 
>> Section 1.2 to clarify the 1:1 relationship between the abbreviation 
>> and its expansion. Please let us know any objections.
>> 
>> Original:
>>   SR-MPLS: Instantiation of SR on the MPLS data plane.
>> 
>> Current:
>>   SR-MPLS: SR over MPLS
>> -->
>> <RG> ok
>> 
>> 
>> 5) <!--[rfced] We note some terms appear separated with a slash (/) in 
>> this document, but it may be unclear whether the slash stands for 
>> "and", "or", or "and/or". Please review the instances below and let us 
>> know how they may be updated for clarity.
>> 
>> Original:
>>   When a PSID is used, the PSID can be inserted at the ingress node and
>>   MUST immediately follow the last label of the SR path, in other
>>   words, inserted after the routing segment (adjacency/node/prefix
>>   segment) pointing to the egress node of the SR path.
>>   ...
>>   A PSID in SR-MPLS is a local label similar to other labels/Segment,
>>   such as a VPN label, defined in MPLS and SR-MPLS.
>> -->
>> <RG> How about following:
>>   words, inserted after the routing segment (adjacency, node, or prefix
>>   segment) pointing to the egress node of the SR path.
>> …
>>   A PSID in SR-MPLS is a local label similar to other labels and segments,
>>   such as a VPN label, defined in MPLS and SR-MPLS.
>> 
>> 6) <!--[rfced] We note that the formatting of ellipses and commas in 
>> the two examples below varies. Should these be made consistent?
>> 
>> Original:
>>   The SID list of a sub-path can be expressed as <SID1, SID2, 
>> ...SIDn, s-PSID>
>> 
>>   The SID list of the end-to-end path can be expressed as <BSID1, 
>> BSID2, ..., BSIDn, e-PSID>
>> 
>> Perhaps:
>>   The SID list of a sub-path can be expressed as <SID1, SID2, ..., 
>> SIDn, s-PSID>
>> 
>>   The SID list of the end-to-end path can be expressed as <BSID1, 
>> BSID2, ..., BSIDn, e-PSID>
>> -->
>> <RG> ok.
>> 
>> 
>> 7) <!--[rfced] We note that Figure 2 uses both "Sub-path" and "SubPath".
>> May we update these instances to be "Sub-path" or "sub-path" to 
>> reflect the term's usage in the running text of this document? Please 
>> let us know your preference.
>> -->
>> <RG> sub-path
>> 
>> 
>> 8) <!--[rfced] Did Alexander Vainshtein contribute to Section 3.4 or Figure 2?
>> As both have the same title, may we add a citation to clarify his contribution?
>> 
>> Original:
>>   The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution from Alexander
>>   Vainshtein on "Nesting of PSIDs".
>> 
>> Perhaps A:
>>   The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution from Alexander
>>   Vainshtein on "Nesting of PSIDs" (Section 3.4).
>> 
>> Perhaps B:
>>   The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution from Alexander
>>   Vainshtein on "Nesting of PSIDs" (Figure 2).
>> -->
>> <RG> A:
>>   The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution from Alexander
>>   Vainshtein on "Nesting of PSIDs" (Section 3.4).
>> 
>> 
>> 9) <!--[rfced] In recent RFCs, we note that Greg Mirsky's organization 
>> appears as "Ericsson", but in this document it appears as "ZTE Corp". 
>> Please let us know if any updates are needed. --> <RG> From RFC 9534.
>>   Greg Mirsky
>>   Ericsson
>>   United States of America
>>   Email: [e-mail]
>> 
>> 10) <!--[rfced] FYI - We have made the following updates to the 
>> terminology used in this document. Please review and let us know any objections.
>> 
>> a. We have added expansions for abbreviations upon first use per 
>> Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each 
>> expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness.
>> 
>> Associated Channel Header (ACH)
>> Label Switched Path (LSP)
>> <RG> ok.
>> 
>> b. The following terms appear inconsistently capitalized and/or 
>> hyphenated throughout this document. We have updated to use the term 
>> listed on the right for consistency within the document and/or to match previous RFCs.
>> 
>> segment list / Segment-List / Segment List > segment list  
>> Performance Measurement > performance measurement (per RFC 7799)  SR 
>> Path > SR path  Egress > egress  Label Stack > label stack
>> -->
>> <RG> ok
>> 
>> 11) <!--[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 in particular, but this 
>> should still be reviewed as a best practice. --> <RG> It’s ok.
>> Thanks,
>> Rakesh
>> 
>> 
>> Thank you.
>> 
>> RFC Editor/kf/ap
>> 
>> 
>> On Feb 15, 2024, at 5:42 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>> 
>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>> 
>> Updated 2024/02/15
>> 
>> 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-4Q9l2USxI
>> Ae6P8O4Zc
>> 
>>     *  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/rfc9545.xml
>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9545.html
>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9545.pdf
>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9545.txt
>> 
>> Diff file of the text:
>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9545-diff.html
>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9545-rfcdiff.html (side by 
>> side)
>> 
>> Diff of the XML: 
>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9545-xmldiff1.html
>> 
>> 
>> Tracking progress
>> -----------------
>> 
>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9545
>> 
>> Please let us know if you have any questions.  
>> 
>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>> 
>> RFC Editor
>> 
>> --------------------------------------
>> RFC9545 (draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment-22)
>> 
>> Title            : Path Segment Identifier in MPLS Based Segment Routing Network
>> Author(s)        : W. Cheng, Ed., H. Li, C. Li, Ed., R. Gandhi, R. Zigler
>> WG Chair(s)      : Bruno Decraene, Alvaro Retana, Joel M. Halpern
>> 
>> Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
> 
>