Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9566 <draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-11> for your review

[Jean Mahoney <[e-mail]>]

Janos,

Thank you for your reply. We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 
status page:

   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9566

As approvals are now complete, this document will move forward in the 
publication process at this time.

Best regards,
RFC Editor/jm


On 4/12/24 8:11 AM, Janos Farkas wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Thank you very much for your efforts improving the document!
> I also approve the updated revision.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Janos
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean Mahoney <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 7:26 PM
> To: Andrew G. Malis <[e-mail]>; Balázs Varga A <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; Janos Farkas <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9566 <draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-11> for your review
> 
> [You don't often get email from [e-mail]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
> 
> Bala'zs, Andy,
> 
> Thank you for your replies. We have updated the document:
> 
>      https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566-lastrfcdiff.html (these changes side by side)
>      https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.txt
>      https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.pdf
>      https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.html
>      https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.xml
>      https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566-diff.html
>      https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566-rfcdiff.html
> 
> We have also noted your approvals on the AUTH48 status page:
> 
>      https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9566
> 
> We have an additional question: in Section 4.2. Should "on" be instead "an" in the following sentence?
> 
> Original:
>      The PREOF capable DetNet IP encapsulation builds on encapsulating
>      DetNet PseudoWire (PW) directly over UDP.
> 
> Perhaps:
>      The PREOF-capable DetNet IP encapsulation builds an encapsulating
>      DetNet pseudowire (PW) directly over UDP.
> 
> We will await further word from you and Janos regarding other AUTH48 changes and/or approval.
> 
> Best regards,
> RFC Editor/jm
> 
> 
> On 4/10/24 10:16 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
>> I also agree, with the changes listed below the document is ready for
>> publication.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Andy
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 10:16 AM Balázs Varga A
>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>      Hi JM,
>>      Many thanks for your great comments/suggestions. Please find
>>      reactions inline.
>>      With these changes I confirm that the document is ready for publication.
>>      Kind regards
>>      Bala'zs
>>
>>      -----Original Message-----
>>      From: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>      <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>      Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2024 12:18 AM
>>      To: Balázs Varga A <[e-mail]
>>      <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Janos Farkas
>>      <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>;
>>      [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>      Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>>      [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>>      [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>>      [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>>      <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>>      <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>      Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9566
>>      <draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-11> 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] Title. FYI, we have expanded PREOF in the title to
>>      match our guidance on expanding abbreviations upon first use. Could
>>      the title be shortened by removing an instance of "DetNet"?
>>
>>      Original:
>>         Deterministic Networking (DetNet): DetNet PREOF via MPLS over
>> UDP/IP
>>
>>      Current:
>>         Deterministic Networking (DetNet): DetNet Packet Replication,
>>         Elimination, and Ordering Functions (PREOF) via MPLS over
>> UDP/IP
>>
>>      Perhaps:
>>         Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Packet Replication, Elimination,
>>         and Ordering Functions (PREOF) via MPLS over UDP/IP
>>      -->
>>      <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Thanks.
>>
>>
>>      2) <!-- [rfced] Title. FYI, we have made the short title, which is
>>      displayed in the header of the PDF, consistent with the title of the
>>      RFC. Please let us know if any changes are necessary.
>>
>>      Original:
>>         PREOF DetNet IP
>>
>>      Current:
>>         DetNet PREOF via MPLS over UDP/IP
>>      -->
>>      <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Thanks.
>>
>>
>>      3) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear
>>      in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search
>>      <https://www.rfc-editor.org/search>.
>>      -->
>>      <Balazs> Suggested keywords: DetNet, IP Data Plane, Service
>>      sub-layer, Replication, Elimination, Ordering.
>>
>>
>>      4) <!-- [rfced] Section 3. Because "practically" usually means
>>      "almost" and "gains" typically means "acquires", may we update the
>>      following sentence?
>>
>>      Original:
>>          The described solution practically gains from MPLS header fields
>>          without requiring the support of the MPLS forwarding plane.
>>
>>      Perhaps:
>>          The described solution leverages MPLS header fields
>>          without requiring the support of the MPLS forwarding plane.
>>      -->
>>      <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Thanks.
>>
>>
>>      5) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.3. FYI, we have updated the following
>>      sentence to improve clarity. Please let us know if any updates are
>>      necessary.
>>
>>      Original:
>>          Note, that Service-IDs is a local ID on the receiver side providing
>>          identification of the DetNet flow at the downstream DetNet service
>>          sub-layer receiver.
>>
>>      Current:
>>          Note that the Service-ID is a local ID on the receiver side that
>>          identifies the DetNet flow at the downstream DetNet service
>>          sub-layer receiver.
>>      -->
>>      <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Thanks.
>>
>>
>>      6) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.4. Does the sentence below mean that the
>>      nodes are configured with the aggregation method?
>>
>>      Original:
>>          The option used for aggregation is known by configuration of the
>>          aggregation/de-aggregation nodes.
>>
>>      Perhaps:
>>          The aggregation method is configured in the
>>          aggregation/de-aggregation nodes.
>>      -->
>>      <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Thanks.
>>
>>
>>      7) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.5. Is only a Service-ID used to identify a
>>      flow or is a Service-ID used with other information to identify a flow?
>>
>>      Original:
>>          A Service-ID can be allocated to be unique and enabling
>>          DetNet flow identification regardless of which input interface
>>      or UDP
>>          tunnel the packet is received.
>>
>>      Perhaps:
>>          A unique Service-ID can be allocated and can be used
>>          to identify a DetNet flow regardless of which input interface or UDP
>>          tunnel receives the packet.
>>      -->
>>      <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Thanks. If the Service-ID is unique,
>>      no other information is needed.
>>
>>
>>      8) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.5. The following sentence implies that
>>      there is a single header that contains both UDP and IP information.
>>
>>      Original:
>>          ...each member flow requires their own Service-ID, UDP
>>          and IP header information.
>>
>>      Perhaps:
>>          ...each member flow requires its own Service-ID, UDP
>>          header information, and IP header information.
>>      -->
>>      <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Thanks.
>>
>>
>>      9) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.5. Is part of the processing the
>>      assignment of the Service-ID? Is the header information assigned?
>>
>>      Original:
>>          The incoming PREOF processing can be implemented via the
>>      provisioning
>>          of received Service-ID, UDP and IP header information.
>>
>>      Possibly:
>>          The incoming PREOF processing can be implemented by assigning
>>          a Service-ID to the received DetNet flow and processing the
>>          information in the UDP and IP headers.
>>      -->
>>      <Balazs> Assigning a Service-ID is a prerequisite for data plane
>>      processing.
>>      So, I think your suggestion describes better the operation. Thanks.
>>
>>
>>      10) <!-- [rfced] Section 5. Does the following list item contain
>>      multiple things (e.g., "PREOF and related Service-IDs")? If so,
>>      should they be on separate lines?
>>
>>      Original:
>>          *  PREOF + related Service-ID(s).
>>      -->
>>      <Balazs> Good catch, here we have two information elements. Proposed
>>      change:
>>      Original:
>>          *  PREOF + related Service-ID(s).
>>      NEW:
>>          *  Type of PREOF to be executed on the DetNet flow.
>>          *  Service-ID(s) used by the member flows.
>>      END
>>
>>
>>      11) <!-- [rfced] Informative References. FYI, we have updated the
>>      following reference to use the URL provided by the DOI. Please let
>>      us know if any updates are necessary.
>>
>>      Original:
>>          [IEEE8021CB]
>>                     IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
>>                     networks - Frame Replication and Elimination for
>>                     Reliability", DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2017.8091139, October
>>                     2017,
>>
>>      <https://standards.ieee.org/standard/802_1CB-2017.html
>>      <https://standards.ieee.org/standard/802_1CB-2017.html>>.
>>
>>      Current:
>>          [IEEE8021CB]
>>                     IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
>>                     networks - Frame Replication and Elimination for
>>                     Reliability", IEEE Std 802.1CB-2017,
>>                     DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2017.8091139, October 2017,
>>                     <https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2017.8091139
>>      <https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2017.8091139>>.
>>      -->
>>      <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Thanks.
>>
>>
>>      12) <!-- [rfced] Informative References. Because the original URL
>>      (https://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/cv-drafts/d1/802-1CBcv-d1-2.pdf <https://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/cv-drafts/d1/802-1CBcv-d1-2.pdf>) requires credentials to access, we recommend updating the reference to point to a landing page. We also note that the draft has been published as an Amendment.
>>
>>      Current:
>>          [IEEEP8021CBcv]
>>                     Kehrer, S., "FRER YANG Data Model and Management
>>                     Information Base Module", IEEE P802.1CBcv
>>                     /D1.2 P802.1CBcv, March 2021,
>>
>>      <https://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/cv-drafts/d1/802-
>>      <https://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/cv-drafts/d1/802->
>>                     1CBcv-d1-2.pdf>.
>>
>>      Perhaps:
>>          [IEEE8021CBcv]
>>                     IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
>>                     networks - Frame Replication and Elimination for
>>                     Reliability - Amendment 1: Information Model, YANG Data
>>                     Model, and Management Information Base Module", Amendment
>>                     to IEEE Std 802.1CB-2017, IEEE Std 802.1CBcv-2021,
>>                     DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.9715061, February 2022,
>>                     <https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.9715061
>>      <https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.9715061>>.
>>      -->
>>      <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Thanks.
>>
>>
>>      13) <!-- [rfced] FYI, 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.
>>      -->
>>      <Balazs> Your changes are OK. Thanks.
>>
>>
>>      14) <!-- [rfced] Terminology. May we hyphenate "PREOF capable" for
>>      ease of reading? For example:
>>
>>      Original:
>>          Figure 5 shows using PREOF in a PREOF capable DetNet IP network...
>>
>>      Perhaps
>>          Figure 5 shows using PREOF in a PREOF-capable DetNet IP network...
>>      -->
>>      <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Please do this change also in the
>>      titles of Fig2, Fig3, and 4.6 Section. Many thanks.
>>
>>
>>      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.
>>
>>      Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this
>>      should still be reviewed as a best practice.
>>      -->
>>      <Balazs> Yes, I have reviewed "Inclusive Language". No changes are
>>      needed.
>>
>>
>>      Thank you.
>>
>>      RFC Editor/jm
>>
>>      On 4/3/24 5:13 PM, [e-mail]
>>      <mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>      *****IMPORTANT*****
>>
>>      Updated 2024/04/03
>>
>>      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://mail/
>> archive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fietf-announce%2Fyb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P
>> 8O4Zc&data=05%7C02%7CJanos.Farkas%40ericsson.com%7C51954e71c4f74c3a203
>> 908dc59833f25%7C92e84cebfbfd47abbe52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C63848366744
>> 9471248%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLC
>> JBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3bDcGjpPnWLnobR4IAF7l5
>> EcPhSwOp8u98WAxePHlJo%3D&reserved=0
>> <https://mai/
>> larchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fietf-announce%2Fyb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6
>> P8O4Zc&data=05%7C02%7CJanos.Farkas%40ericsson.com%7C51954e71c4f74c3a20
>> 3908dc59833f25%7C92e84cebfbfd47abbe52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C6384836674
>> 49476407%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiL
>> CJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=JHfrssahsI2adsNolKgO5
>> Gvo%2B5vHj5UXEre9BMJxvug%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>            *  The archive itself:
>>      https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
>>
>> <https://mai/
>> larchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fbrowse%2Fauth48archive%2F&data=05%7C02%7CJa
>> nos.Farkas%40ericsson.com%7C51954e71c4f74c3a203908dc59833f25%7C92e84ce
>> bfbfd47abbe52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638483667449485869%7CUnknown%7CTWF
>> pbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6M
>> n0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ZvcmwlCWrlum547tvXqwWcQzN6pZRtHpC2yZGWotnWc%3
>> D&reserved=0>
>>
>>            *  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/rfc9566.xml
>>      <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.xml>
>>      https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.html
>>      <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.html>
>>      https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.pdf
>>      <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.pdf>
>>      https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.txt
>>
>> <https://www/
>> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9566.txt&data=05%7C02%7CJanos.Farkas%40
>> ericsson.com%7C51954e71c4f74c3a203908dc59833f25%7C92e84cebfbfd47abbe52
>> 080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638483667449526545%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJW
>> IjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%
>> 7C%7C&sdata=9I%2BeExW5Qw5jzYC9YHPQ18yd4fcHgRrKpObWA7icwXE%3D&reserved=
>> 0>
>>
>>      Diff file of the text:
>>      https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566-diff.html
>>      <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566-diff.html>
>>      https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566-rfcdiff.html
>>
>> <https://www/
>> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9566-rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7CJanos.
>> Farkas%40ericsson.com%7C51954e71c4f74c3a203908dc59833f25%7C92e84cebfbf
>> d47abbe52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638483667449547081%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZ
>> sb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3
>> D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=RnQKNuoGNQ3NDTx0Gqnzc0y7tEM97PT0GPh2f%2BRmiBI%3D&
>> reserved=0> (side by side)
>>
>>      Diff of the XML:
>>      https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566-xmldiff1.html
>>
>> <https://www/
>> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9566-xmldiff1.html&data=05%7C02%7CJanos
>> .Farkas%40ericsson.com%7C51954e71c4f74c3a203908dc59833f25%7C92e84cebfb
>> fd47abbe52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638483667449561492%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbG
>> Zsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%
>> 3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dabHP2de69lPW317epbmydZnUZ8JNpCWs%2FyFetQTF7c%3D
>> &reserved=0>
>>
>>      The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own
>>      diff files of the XML.
>>
>>      Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
>>      https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.original.v2v3.xml
>>
>> <https://www/
>> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9566.original.v2v3.xml&data=05%7C02%7CJ
>> anos.Farkas%40ericsson.com%7C51954e71c4f74c3a203908dc59833f25%7C92e84c
>> ebfbfd47abbe52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638483667449572020%7CUnknown%7CTW
>> FpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6
>> Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Sd0rs9JWLn3ylcxvPUlQm68D5aZG6EgVrLn0JPpB3lc%
>> 3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>      XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
>>      only:
>>      https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.form.xml
>>
>> <https://www/
>> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9566.form.xml&data=05%7C02%7CJanos.Fark
>> as%40ericsson.com%7C51954e71c4f74c3a203908dc59833f25%7C92e84cebfbfd47a
>> bbe52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638483667449582409%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d
>> 8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C
>> 0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=e9dRZiyxS1kTmzNaRt8f32PHtOxBmx6LqZPND2wqOLg%3D&reserv
>> ed=0>
>>
>>
>>      Tracking progress
>>      -----------------
>>
>>      The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>      https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9566
>>
>> <https://www/
>> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9566&data=05%7C02%7CJanos.Farkas%40erics
>> son.com%7C51954e71c4f74c3a203908dc59833f25%7C92e84cebfbfd47abbe52080c6
>> b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638483667449592725%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiM
>> C4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C
>> &sdata=6hWAG4%2FYYp1Nc82baq4JmAzzu1giLbQXrqAjNOsf6TA%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>>      Please let us know if you have any questions.
>>
>>      Thank you for your cooperation,
>>
>>      RFC Editor
>>
>>      --------------------------------------
>>      RFC9566 (draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-11)
>>
>>      Title            : Deterministic Networking (DetNet): DetNet PREOF
>>      via MPLS over UDP/IP
>>      Author(s)        : B. Varga, J. Farkas, A. Malis
>>      WG Chair(s)      : Lou Berger, János Farkas
>>
>>      Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, John Scudder, Gunter Van de Velde
>>
>>