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

[Martin Duke <[e-mail]>]

LGTM

On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 4:00 PM Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Bob,
>
> We’ve updated the files accordingly. We will await Martin’s approval of
> the most recent changes before moving this document forward in the
> publication process.
>
> The updated files are here (please refresh):
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330.txt
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330.pdf
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330.xml
>
> This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330-diff.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>
> This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330-auth48diff.html
>
> This diff file shows only the changes since the last posted version:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330-lastdiff.html
>
> Thank you,
> RFC Editor/ap
>
> > On Jan 13, 2023, at 3:28 PM, Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Alanna,
> >
> > And now I notice that, to make the terminology section consistent with
> 9331, 9330 still needs the following change:
> >
> > Current:
> >     e.g., Relentless TCP [RELENTLESS], Prague [PRAGUE-CC] [PragueLinux],
> > Proposed:
> >     e.g., Relentless TCP [RELENTLESS], Prague for TCP and QUIC
> [PRAGUE-CC] [PragueLinux],
> >
> > .../then/ I think we're done.
> >
> >
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
> > On 13/01/2023 01:36, Alanna Paloma wrote:
> >> Hi Bob and *Martin,
> >>
> >> Thank you for the updated XML file.  We notice that “BBRv2” and “BBR”
> are expanded in this document and RFC-to-be 9332, respectively; would you
> also like to expand “BBRv2” in Section 1.2 of RFC-to-be 9331?
> >>
> >> *Martin - As the AD, please review and approve of the changes in the
> diff file below:
> >>
> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330-lastdiff.html
> >>
> >>
> >> Once we have received Martin’s approval, we will move this document
> forward in the publication process.
> >>
> >> The updated files are here (please refresh):
> >>
> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330.html
> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330.txt
> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330.pdf
> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330.xml
> >>
> >>
> >> This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D:
> >>
> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330-diff.html
> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330-rfcdiff.html
> >>  (side by side)
> >>
> >> This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far:
> >>
> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330-auth48diff.html
> >>
> >>
> >> This diff file shows only the changes since the last posted version:
> >>
> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330-lastdiff.html
> >>
> >>
> >> This page shows the AUTH48 status of your document:
> >>
> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9330
> >>
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> RFC Editor/ap
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Jan 12, 2023, at 3:51 PM, Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>
> >>>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Alanna, Karen,
> >>>
> >>> Are we done? Do you need our approvals again for anything. Or Martin's?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Bob
> >>>
> >>> On 12/01/2023 01:31, Bob Briscoe wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Alanna,
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you for the corrections to your edits.
> >>>> I have now applied the expansions of abbreviations that Martin wanted
> from me, which are attached (denoted rfc9330l) (that's a lower-case 'el' at
> the end).
> >>>> I have also attached the diff relative to the latest version you made
> available (which I have denoted as rfc9330k).
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Bob
> >>>>
> >>>> On 11/01/2023 23:38, Alanna Paloma wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi Bob,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you for your reply. We have updated the files accordingly.
> Please note that the bug affecting the RFC reference entries has been fixed
> (i.e., “and RFC Publisher” is no longer present in the entries).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Per your note, we will await further changes to the abbreviation
> expansions before moving forward with publication.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> The updated files are here (please refresh):
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330.html
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330.txt
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330.pdf
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330.xml
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330-diff.html
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330-rfcdiff.html
> >>>>>  (side by side)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330-auth48diff.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This diff file shows only the changes since the last posted version:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330-lastdiff.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>> RFC Editor/ap
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Jan 10, 2023, at 3:06 PM, Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>
> >>>>>>  wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Alanna,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> #1 [the] flow rate
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm afraid as well as reverting the additions of 'the' to 'flow
> rate', two instances of 'the flow rate' that were correct have incorrectly
> had 'the' removed:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2. L4S Architecture Overview
> >>>>>> CURRENT:
> >>>>>>         This maintains the same degree of control over queuing and
> >>>>>>         utilization, whatever flow rate,
> >>>>>> PROPOSED:
> >>>>>>         This maintains the same degree of control over queuing and
> >>>>>>         utilization, whatever the flow rate,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 5.1 Why These Primary Components?
> >>>>>> CURRENT:
> >>>>>>        the host keeps the signalling frequency from the network
> high,
> >>>>>>        whatever flow rate,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> PROPOSED:
> >>>>>>        the host keeps the signalling frequency from the network
> high,
> >>>>>>        whatever
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>   flow rate,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> #2 Hyphenation of Dual-Queue
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Missed one at the end of  "4.2. Network Components" (I did say '5
> occurrences'):
> >>>>>> CURRENT:
> >>>>>>        it means a dual queue AQM with per-queue marking
> >>>>>> PROPOSED:
> >>>>>>        it means a dual-queue AQM with per-queue marking
> >>>>>> Note: This is not capitalized deliberately, because it means just
> any AQM with two queues, not the name of the specific Dual-Queue Coupled
> AQM.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> #3 RFCYYY1
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Also, I assume RFCYYY1 can now become RFC9332
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> #4 The 'and RFC Publisher' bug
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> For completeness, I'll keep pointing this out until the bug is
> fixed.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Bob
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 09/01/2023 20:37, Alanna Paloma wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi Bob,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Apologies for the delay. We had made the changes internally, and
> they are now available for your review.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The updated files are here (please refresh):
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330.html
> >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330.txt
> >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330.pdf
> >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330.xml
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330-diff.html
> >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330-rfcdiff.html
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>   (side by side)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330-auth48diff.html
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This diff file shows only the changes since the last posted
> version:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330-lastdiff.html
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>>>> RFC Editor/ap
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Jan 7, 2023, at 8:50 AM, Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>   wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 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/
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> ________________________________________________________________
> >>>>>> Bob Briscoe
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://bobbriscoe.net/
> >>> --
> >>> ________________________________________________________________
> >>> Bob Briscoe
> >>> http://bobbriscoe.net/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> > --
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > Bob Briscoe
> > http://bobbriscoe.net/
>
>