Re: [auth48] [C350] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9330 <draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch-20> for your review

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

Alanna, Karen,

In the related thread Subject: "Re: [C350] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9332 
<draft-ietf-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled-25> for your review"
On 05/01/2023 19:54, Karen Moore wrote:
> Notes:
>
> 1) Hyphenated “Dual Queue” in RFCs-to-be 9330 and 9331.
> 2) Removed “the” before “flow rate” in RFCs-to-be 9330 and 9331.
> 3) Updated “[SCReAM]” to  “[SCReAM-L4S]”  to match  RFCs-to-be 9330 and 9331.

But under the https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/ area, only 9331 seems 
to have been updated recently, not 9330.
I've tried refreshing the page etc.

I think Martin is expecting you to give me the edit token to deal with 
the expansions of abbreviations, like he just asked me to do for 9331.
This is to clarify that I will not take the token for 9330 until you 
have made the above edits.


Bob


On 02/12/2022 00:18, Alanna Paloma wrote:
> Hi Bob,
>
> Apologies for not being clear. Once the terminology from RFCs-to-be 9331 and 9332 are finalized, we will update RFC-to-be 9330 accordingly. When these 3 documents have completed AUTH48, they will move forward in the publication process without waiting for the 2 documents currently in MISSREF.
>
> Best regards,
> RFC Editor/ap
>
>> On Nov 30, 2022, at 5:02 PM, Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Alanna, (and possibly Alice?)
>>
>> On 29/11/2022 22:32, Alanna Paloma wrote:
>>> Bob - We have reverted the change to the list of examples, and we will hold this document until the cluster terminology has been finalized.
>> To clarify, do you believe "the cluster terminology will have been finalized" when
>> 1) the terminology sections of l4s-arch (RFC-to-be-9330) and ecn-l4sid (RFC-to-be-9331) have both been finalized and made consistent with each other? Or
>> 2) when all 5 drafts in the cluster have been finalized (2 of which are missref's, so this second option would hold back the other 3 for a long time)?
>>
>> I think it would make sense to publish the three main L4S drafts in the cluster at the same time (RFCs-to-be 9330, 9331, 9332), but I don't see any need to wait for the other two.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> -- 
>> ________________________________________________________________
>> Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/
>>

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/