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

[Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>]

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/