Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9488 <draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-11> for your review
Rebecca VanRheenen <rvanrheenen@amsl.com> Wed, 04 October 2023 15:08 UTC
Return-Path: <rvanrheenen@amsl.com>
X-Original-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C98D1C1524C8; Wed, 4 Oct 2023 08:08:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.207
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.207 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id diUbfnf6WcaS; Wed, 4 Oct 2023 08:08:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c8a.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C76E7C1524AE; Wed, 4 Oct 2023 08:08:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FC13424B441; Wed, 4 Oct 2023 08:08:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pFxi2wsuS7le; Wed, 4 Oct 2023 08:08:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.101.173] (c-98-45-16-251.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [98.45.16.251]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3B29E424B440; Wed, 4 Oct 2023 08:08:29 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
From: Rebecca VanRheenen <rvanrheenen@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <79B73A36-2126-4576-AF96-BDA5F7BAA321@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2023 08:08:28 -0700
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, "pce-ads@ietf.org" <pce-ads@ietf.org>, "pce-chairs@ietf.org" <pce-chairs@ietf.org>, "julien.meuric@orange.com" <julien.meuric@orange.com>, "jgs@juniper.net" <jgs@juniper.net>, "auth48archive@rfc-editor.org" <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D0D91435-C7BF-4EAF-853A-A0925E5C03CA@amsl.com>
References: <20230928210339.1BBDD76358@rfcpa.amsl.com> <F084E29F-4C9D-45F6-9DC6-5B0386AD37B8@nokia.com> <E2E756D7-6FC2-4ECF-BBEC-82BE413CC2A8@amsl.com> <79B73A36-2126-4576-AF96-BDA5F7BAA321@nokia.com>
To: "Andrew Stone (Nokia)" <andrew.stone@nokia.com>, "Mustapha Aissaoui (Nokia)" <mustapha.aissaoui@nokia.com>, "ssidor@cisco.com" <ssidor@cisco.com>, "ssivabal@ciena.com" <ssivabal@ciena.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/FyO1kJrARiSGb9AvqARBXLhGxQI>
Subject: Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9488 <draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-11> for your review
X-BeenThere: auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Archiving AUTH48 exchanges between the RFC Production Center, the authors, and other related parties" <auth48archive.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/>
List-Post: <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2023 15:08:38 -0000
Hi Andrew, Thanks for the quick reply! We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9488). We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the publication process. Thank you, RFC Editor/rv > On Oct 3, 2023, at 3:56 PM, Andrew Stone (Nokia) <andrew.stone@nokia.com> wrote: > > Hi Rebecca, > > Thank you for the updates. I've reviewed the latest document and it looks good to me. > > I approve publication. > > Thank you once again! > Andrew > > > > On 2023-10-02, 5:13 PM, "Rebecca VanRheenen" <rvanrheenen@amsl.com <mailto:rvanrheenen@amsl.com>> wrote: > > > Hi Andrew, > > Thank you for the updated XML file! Responses to your points about questions 12, 17, and 18f are below in addition to a comment about question 18a. Links to the updated files are also listed below. > > Please let us know if you have any further questions or comments. > >>> 12) <!-- [rfced] In Table 1, would it be helpful to list bit 6 first and then bit 7 >>> (matches IANA registry)? Or do you prefer the current (matches order mentioned in >>> text before table)? >>> --> >> >> [andrew] Updated to keep consistency with IANA registry and reading the bit object definition from left to right. >> >> [andrew] Is it recommended to also update the order of the bit descriptions as well? > > > The current looks good to us. Let us know if you think any further changes are needed. > > > > >>> 17) <!-- [rfced] Would you like the references to be alphabetized or left in their >>> current order? >>> --> >> >> [andrew] No preference, Okay to proceed with alphabetized if it is commonly recommended and also okay to keep as is. > > > We alphabetized the references as this is more common in the RFC Series (though it is not required). > > > > >>> 18f) We see that "LSP object" is used in both RFCs 8231 and 8281, >>> but "LSP Attribute Object" (or "LSPA") is not used in either. Should the >>> sentence below be updated to reflect usage in the cited documents? >>> >>> >>> Original: >>> It is >>> important to note that [RFC8231] and [RFC8281] permit the LSP >>> Attribute Object to be included in PCUpd messages for PCC-initiated >>> and PCE-initiated LSPs. >>> --> >> >> [andrew] LSPA is defined in RFC5440 section 7.11. This is the base PCEP RFC (stateless, only defines PcReq Msg). >> LSP and LSPA are seperate objects. LSPA is referenced in RFC8231, see definition in RFC8231 section 6.4. >> As per section 6.4, The LSPA object follows immediately after the LSP object in other message exchanges defined in that RFC (ex: >> PcUpd). >> The flag is embedded within the LSP Attribute object, not the LSP Object, >> thus needs to remain referencing the "attribute" object. >> >> Perhaps a citation to RFC5440?: >> >> It is >> important to note that [RFC8231] and [RFC8281] permit the LSP >> Attribute Object([RFC5440]) to be included in PCUpd messages for PCC-initiated >> and PCE-initiated LSPs. > > > Thank you for the clarification. We added the [RFC5440] citation. > > > > >>> 18a) Please confirm the name/description for the E flag defined in this >>> document. We see the following forms used in the document: >>> >>> >>> Enforcement >>> Protection Enforcement >>> Local Protection Enforcement >>> >>> >>> Note: The current name in the "LSPA Object Flag Field" registry is "Protection >>> Enforcement" (see >>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lspa-object-flag-field<https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lspa-object-flag-field> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lspa-object-flag-field<https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lspa-object-flag-field>>); if >>> needed, we will request an update to the registry prior to publication. >> >> [Andrew] 'Protection Enforcement' should be used. > > > We updated two instances to use “Protection Enforcement”. See Sections 1 and 5 (Table 1). Please review. > > > ______________ > > > Updated XML file: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488.xml <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488.xml> > > > Updated output files: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488.txt <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488.txt> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488.pdf <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488.pdf> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488.html <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488.html> > > > Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488-auth48diff.html <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488-auth48diff.html> > > > Diff files showing all changes: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488-diff.html <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488-diff.html> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488-rfcdiff.html <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488-rfcdiff.html> (side-by-side diff) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488-alt-diff.html <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488-alt-diff.html> (diff showing changes where text is moved or deleted) > > > Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the most recent version. > > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9488 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9488> > > > > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/rv > > > > > > >> On Oct 1, 2023, at 8:55 PM, Andrew Stone (Nokia) <andrew.stone@nokia.com <mailto:andrew.stone@nokia.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi RFC Editor, >> >> Thank you very much for undertaking this work and doing a thorough review. Much appreciated. >> >> I've edited the XML document and attached in the reply. Most recommendations adopted, comments resolved within the XML have been removed. Thank you for the abbreviation expansions. >> >> A few outstanding comments/replies embedded in the XML with [andrew]. >> >> Outstanding points (see reply inline in xml): >> >> - (12) reordered table to align with IANA and left-to-right reading, but should bit field description be re-ordered as well? Or okay to keep descriptions in order as is? >> - (17) reference re-ordering. No preference, okay with selection by RFC editor >> - (18.f) text should remain LSPA, but rfceditor to confirm LSPA citation to 5440 required or not >> >> Thanks >> Andrew >> >> >> >> On 2023-09-28, 5:03 PM, "rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> <mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>>" <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> <mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>>> wrote: >> >> CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information. >> >> Authors, >> >> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file. >> >> >> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please note that the title of the document has been updated as >> follows. We expanded the abbreviation "PCEP" per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 >> ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review. >> >> >> Original: >> Local Protection Enforcement in PCEP >> >> >> Current: >> Local Protection Enforcement in the Path Computation Element >> Communication Protocol (PCEP) >> >> >> Note that we also updated the abbreviated title (only appears in the running >> header of the pdf output) to match the document title as there was space. >> >> >> Original: >> Protection Enforcement >> >> >> Current: >> Local Protection Enforcement in PCEP >> --> >> >> >> >> >> 2) <!-- [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> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/search> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/search>>. --> >> >> >> >> >> 3) <!-- [rfced] For this sentence in the Abstract, is "protection strictness" >> okay, or would "protection enforcement" (like in the document title) be >> better? >> >> >> Original: >> This document also introduces a new flag for >> signalling protection strictness in PCEP. >> --> >> >> >> >> >> 4) <!-- [rfced] Please review "define enforcement, or strictness of the >> protection requirement" here. Would it be helpful to update to either >> "define the enforcement of the protection requirement" or "define the >> strictness of the protection enforcement requirement"? >> >> >> Original: >> It is desirable for an operator to be able to define the enforcement, >> or strictness of the protection requirement. >> >> >> Perhaps: >> It is desirable for an operator to be able to define the enforcement >> of the protection requirement. >> >> >> Or: >> It is desirable for an operator to be able to define the strictness >> of the protection enforcement requirement. >> --> >> >> >> >> >> 5) <!-- [rfced] Will readers understand what is meant by "reference notes"? Also, >> we revised "is path setup type and data plane technology agnostic" as >> follows to improve readability. >> >> >> Original: >> The document contains reference notes for Segment Routing, however >> the content described is path setup type and data plane technology >> agnostic. >> >> >> Current: >> The document contains reference notes for Segment Routing; however, >> the content described is agnostic in regard to path setup type and >> data plane technology. >> --> >> >> >> >> >> 6) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble understanding how the last part of this >> sentence (i.e., "and the use case...") connects with the first >> part. Also, would a citation be helpful for "RSVP"? >> >> >> Original: >> The name of the flag uses the term "Desired", which by >> definition means "strongly wished for or intended" and the use case >> originated from the RSVP. >> >> >> Perhaps: >> The name of the flag uses the term "Desired", which by >> definition means "strongly wished for or intended". The use case >> for this flag originated in RSVP. >> --> >> >> >> >> >> 7) <!-- [rfced] May we update "Implementations of [RFC5440]" as follows for >> clarity? >> >> >> Original: >> Implementations of [RFC5440] have either interpreted the L flag as >> PROTECTION MANDATORY or PROTECTION PREFERRED, leading to operational >> differences. >> >> >> Perhaps: >> Implementations that use PCEP [RFC5440] have interpreted the L flag as >> either PROTECTION MANDATORY or PROTECTION PREFERRED, leading to operational >> differences. >> --> >> >> >> >> >> 8) <!-- [rfced] Should "service agreement definitions" here read "Service Level >> Agreement definitions" or "SLA definitions"? Or is the current correct? >> >> >> Original: >> A network may be providing transit to >> multiple service agreement definitions against the same base topology >> network, whose behavior could vary, such as wanting local protection >> to be invoked on some LSPs and not wanting local protection on >> others. >> --> >> >> >> >> >> 9) <!-- [rfced] Please review "The boolean bit L flag". Would one of the >> following options improve clarity and readability? >> >> >> Original: >> The boolean bit L flag is unable to distinguish between the different >> options of PROTECTION MANDATORY, UNPROTECTED MANDATORY, PROTECTION >> PREFERRED and UNPROTECTED PREFERRED. >> >> >> Perhaps: >> The L flag is a boolean bit and thus unable to distinguish between the different >> options of PROTECTION MANDATORY, UNPROTECTED MANDATORY, PROTECTION >> PREFERRED and UNPROTECTED PREFERRED. >> >> >> Or: >> Because it is a boolean bit, the L flag is unable to distinguish between the different >> options of PROTECTION MANDATORY, UNPROTECTED MANDATORY, PROTECTION >> PREFERRED, and UNPROTECTED PREFERRED. >> --> >> >> >> >> >> 10) <!-- [rfced] Two consecutive paragraphs in Section 4.2 begin with "For >> example". Is "For example" needed here? Or should the second one be >> updated to something like "As another example"? Please review. >> >> >> Also, in the second paragraph below, we updated "is when an operator" to "is >> for use cases in which an operator" for clarity and for consistency with the >> previous paragraph. Please review. >> >> >> Original: >> For example, PROTECTION MANDATORY is for use cases where an operator >> may need the LSP to follow a path which has local protection provided >> along the full path, ensuring that if there is a failure anywhere >> along the path that traffic will be fast re-routed at the point. >> >> >> For example, UNPROTECTED MANDATORY is when an operator may >> intentionally prefer an LSP to not be locally protected, and thus >> would rather local failures cause the LSP to go down. ... >> >> >> Perhaps: >> PROTECTION MANDATORY is for use cases in which an operator >> may need the LSP to follow a path that has local protection provided >> along the full path, ensuring that if there is a failure anywhere >> along the path that traffic will be fast re-routed at the point. >> >> >> UNPROTECTED MANDATORY is for use cases in which an operator may >> intentionally prefer an LSP to not be locally protected and thus >> would rather local failures cause the LSP to go down. >> --> >> >> >> >> >> 11) <!-- [rfced] Please review "protected with path protection" here. Would >> updating to just "protected" retain the intended meaning? >> >> >> Original: >> An example >> scenario is one where an LSP is protected with path protection via a >> secondary diverse LSP. >> >> >> Perhaps: >> An example >> scenario is one where an LSP is protected via a secondary diverse LSP. >> --> >> >> >> >> >> 12) <!-- [rfced] In Table 1, would it be helpful to list bit 6 first and then bit 7 >> (matches IANA registry)? Or do you prefer the current (matches order mentioned in >> text before table)? >> --> >> >> >> >> >> 13) <!-- [rfced] We updated this sentence as follows to more accurately describe >> the figure. Please let us know any objections. >> >> >> Original: >> The format of the LSPA Object as defined in [RFC5440] is: >> >> >> Current: >> The following shows the format of the LSPA object as defined in >> [RFC5440] with the addition of the E flag defined in this document: >> --> >> >> >> >> >> 14) <!-- [rfced] May we rephrase this sentence to improve clarity? >> >> >> Original: >> Considerations in the message passing between the PCC and the PCE for >> the E flag bit which are not supported by the entity are outlined in >> this section, with requirements for the PCE and the PCC implementing >> this document described at the end. >> >> >> Perhaps: >> This section outlines considerations for the E flag bit in the message >> passing between the PCC and the PCE that are not supported by the entity. >> The requirements for the PCE and the PCC implementing this document are described >> at the end. >> --> >> >> >> >> >> 15) <!-- [rfced] Should "PCUpd E flag (and L flag)" be updated to "the E flag (and >> L flag) in a PCUpd message" or something similar? Also, we used a >> semicolon and changed "therefore" to "so" for clarity. Please review. >> >> >> Original: >> For PCC-initiated LSPs, PCUpd E flag (and L flag) is an echo from the >> previous PCRpt however the bit value is ignored on the PCE from the >> previous PCRpt, therefore the E flag value set in the PCUpd is zero. >> >> >> Perhaps: >> For PCC-initiated LSPs, the E flag (and L flag) in a PCUpd message is an echo from the >> previous PCRpt message; however, the bit value is ignored on the PCE from the >> previous PCRpt message, so the E flag value set in the PCUpd message is 0. >> --> >> >> >> >> >> 16) <!-- [rfced] Will readers understand what "it" refers to here? >> >> >> Original: >> For a PCC which does support this document, it MAY set the E flag to >> 1 depending on local configuration. >> >> >> Perhaps: >> A PCC that does support this document MAY set the E flag to >> 1 depending on local configuration. >> >> >> Or: >> For a PCC that does support this document, the E flag MAY be set to >> 1 depending on local configuration. >> --> >> >> >> >> >> 17) <!-- [rfced] Would you like the references to be alphabetized or left in their >> current order? >> --> >> >> >> >> >> 18) <!-- [rfced] Terminology >> >> >> a) Please confirm the name/description for the E flag defined in this >> document. We see the following forms used in the document: >> >> >> Enforcement >> Protection Enforcement >> Local Protection Enforcement >> >> >> Note: The current name in the "LSPA Object Flag Field" registry is "Protection >> Enforcement" (see >> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lspa-object-flag-field <https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lspa-object-flag-field> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lspa-object-flag-field> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lspa-object-flag-field>>); if >> needed, we will request an update to the registry prior to publication. >> >> >> >> >> b) Should "a local protection desired" here read "the L flag"? >> >> >> Original: >> Therefore, a local protection desired does >> not require the transit router to satisfy protection in order to >> establish the RSVP signalled path. >> >> >> Perhaps: >> Therefore, the L flag does >> not require the transit router to satisfy protection in order to >> establish the RSVP-signaled path. >> >> >> >> >> c) FYI - We have updated instances of "PCRpt", "PCUpd", "PCReq", and >> "PCInitiate" with the word "message" (i.e., "PCRpt message", "PCUpd message", >> "PCReq message", and "PCInitiate message"). >> >> >> >> >> d) We see "Session Attribute" (initial caps and no hyphen) in RFC 3209, but we >> do not see "SESSION-ATTRIBUTE" (all caps with hyphen). Please review and let >> us know if any updates are needed in the following sentence. >> >> >> Original: >> One such concept in PCEP is the 'Local Protection >> Desired' (L flag in the LSPA Object in [RFC5440]), which was >> originally defined in the SESSION-ATTRIBUTE Object in RFC3209. >> >> >> >> >> e) "Segment Routed path" does not appear in RFC 8664, but "Segment >> Routing path" does. Are any changes needed in these sentences? >> >> >> Original: >> PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing ([RFC8664]) extends support in >> PCEP for Segment Routed paths. >> ... >> When computing a Segment Routed path, It is RECOMMENDED that a PCE >> assume a Node SID is protected. >> >> >> f) We see that "LSP object" is used in both RFCs 8231 and 8281, >> but "LSP Attribute Object" (or "LSPA") is not used in either. Should the >> sentence below be updated to reflect usage in the cited documents? >> >> >> Original: >> It is >> important to note that [RFC8231] and [RFC8281] permit the LSP >> Attribute Object to be included in PCUpd messages for PCC-initiated >> and PCE-initiated LSPs. >> --> >> >> >> >> >> 19) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for the following abbreviations >> per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each >> expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. >> >> >> Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) >> Label Switched Path (LSP) >> Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) >> Service Level Agreement (SLA) >> --> >> >> >> >> >> 20) <!-- [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>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language&gt;>> >> 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. >> --> >> >> >> >> >> Thank you. >> >> >> RFC Editor/rv/ap >> >> >> On Sep 28, 2023, at 2:02 PM, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> <mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>> wrote: >> >> >> *****IMPORTANT***** >> >> >> Updated 2023/09/28 >> >> >> 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/> <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/> <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>> <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>> <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary&gt;>>. >> >> >> * 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 >> >> >> * rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> <mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>> (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). >> >> >> * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>>, 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 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc>> >> >> >> * The archive itself: >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/> <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, >> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>> 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/rfc9488.xml <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488.xml> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488.xml> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488.xml>> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488.html <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488.html> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488.html> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488.html>> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488.pdf <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488.pdf> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488.pdf> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488.pdf>> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488.txt <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488.txt> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488.txt> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488.txt>> >> >> >> Diff file of the text: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488-diff.html <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488-diff.html> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488-diff.html> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488-diff.html>> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488-rfcdiff.html <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488-rfcdiff.html> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488-rfcdiff.html> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488-rfcdiff.html>> (side by side) >> >> >> Diff of the XML: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488-xmldiff1.html <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488-xmldiff1.html> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488-xmldiff1.html> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488-xmldiff1.html>> >> >> >> 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/rfc9488.original.v2v3.xml <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488.original.v2v3.xml> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488.original.v2v3.xml> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488.original.v2v3.xml>> >> >> >> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates >> only: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488.form.xml <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488.form.xml> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488.form.xml> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9488.form.xml>> >> >> >> >> >> Tracking progress >> ----------------- >> >> >> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9488 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9488> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9488> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9488>> >> >> >> Please let us know if you have any questions. >> >> >> Thank you for your cooperation, >> >> >> RFC Editor >> >> >> -------------------------------------- >> RFC9488 (draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-11) >> >> >> Title : Local Protection Enforcement in PCEP >> Author(s) : A. Stone, M. Aissaoui, S. Sidor, S. Sivabalan >> WG Chair(s) : Julien Meuric, Dhruv Dhody >> >> >> Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <rfc9488-update-1.xml> > > > > >
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9488 <draft-ietf-p… rfc-editor
- [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9488 <draft-ietf-pce-l… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9488 <draft-ietf-p… Andrew Stone (Nokia)
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9488 <draft-ietf-p… Rebecca VanRheenen
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9488 <draft-ietf-p… Andrew Stone (Nokia)
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9488 <draft-ietf-p… Rebecca VanRheenen
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9488 <draft-ietf-p… Samuel Sidor (ssidor)
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9488 <draft-ietf-p… Rebecca VanRheenen
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9488 <draft-ietf-p… Mustapha Aissaoui (Nokia)
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9488 <draft-ietf-p… Rebecca VanRheenen
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9488 <draft-ietf-p… Sivabalan, Siva
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9488 <draft-ietf-p… Rebecca VanRheenen