Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9426 <draft-irtf-nwcrg-bats-07> for your review

[Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>]

Greetings,

We do not believe we have heard from you regarding this document's readiness
for publication.  Please review our previous messages describing the AUTH48
process and containing any document-specific questions we may have had.

We will wait to hear from you before continuing with the publication process.

The AUTH48 status page for this document is located here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9426

Thank you,
RFC Editor/ap


> On Jun 5, 2023, at 10:28 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> Authors,
> 
> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the
> following questions, which are also in the XML file.
> 
> 1) <!--[rfced] Please ensure that the guidelines listed in Section 2.1 of RFC
> 5743
> have been adhered to in this document.  -->
> 
> 
> 2) <!--[rfced] Please note the title of the document has been updated as
> follows. Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC
> Style Guide").
> Please review.
> 
> Original:
> BATS Coding Scheme for Multi-hop Data Transport
> 
> Current:
> BATched Sparse (BATS) Coding Scheme for Multi-hop Data Transport
> -->
> 
> 
> 3) <!--[rfced] John, would you like to update your author information?
> If so, please provide the updated information. We note that
> National Chiao Tung University (NCTU) has become
> National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University (NYCU).
> -->
> 
> 
> 4) <!--[rfced] Are the terms "data delivery process" or "Data Delivery
> Procedures" interchangeable with "Data Delivery Protocol"?
> If so, please consider whether the acronym "DDP" should be used, as it
> is defined in Section 2.
> 
> Original (Section 2.1):
>   We describe a data delivery process that involves one source node,
>   one destination node, and multiple intermediate nodes in between.
> 
> Original:
> 2.2.  Data Delivery Procedures
> -->
> 
> 
> 5) <!-- [rfced] FYI, we have used the <sup> element for superscript in this
> document.
> Please review and let us know if further updates are needed.
> 
> Note: In the HTML and PDF, it appears as superscript. In the text output, <sup>
> generates a^b.
> -->
> 
> 
> 6) <!--[rfced] We note that the spacing of equations is inconsistent within this
> document. May we include spaces to make them consistent and improve readability?
> 
> For example:
> Original:
> Let P = K*T-F denote the number of padding octets.
> 
> Perhaps:
> Let P = K * T - F denote the number of padding octets.
> -->
> 
> 
> 7) <!--[rfced] We see a number of author-inserted comments in the XML file for
> this document. We are unsure if these have been resolved. Please review
> and let us know if these can be deleted or if they need to be addressed.
> -->
> 
> 
> 8) <!--[rfced] For clarity, may we update this sentence as follows
> to remove the first instance of "with"?
> 
> Original:
>   The DDP MUST
>   deliver with each coded packet with its batch ID, which will be
>   further used by both recoder and decoder.
> 
> Perhaps:
>   DDP MUST
>   deliver each coded packet with its batch ID, which will be
>   further used by both the recoder and decoder.
> -->
> 
> 
> 9) <!--[rfced] Is it accurate that "DDP" is a type of protocol rather
> than the name of a specific protocol?
> 
> If "DDP" is the name of a specific protocol, we suggest
> removing the definite article. For examples:
> 
> Current: The DDP MUST deliver some of the information ...
> Perhaps: DDP MUST deliver some of the information ...
> 
> Current: The DDP extracts the coded packets ...
> Perhaps: DDP extracts the coded packets ...
> -->
> 
> 
> 10) <!--[rfced] May "DDP protocol version" be updated as follows to avoid
> redundancy? (If expanded, "DDP protocol" would read "Data Delivery Protocol
> protocol".)
> 
> Also, FYI, one instance of "DPP packet" has been corrected to "DDP packet";
> please let us know if that is not accurate.
> 
> Original:
>   A DDP can form a DDP packet using a coded
>   packet by adding necessary information that can help to deliver the
>   DPP packet to the next node, e.g., the DDP protocol version,
>   addresses and session identifiers.
> 
> Perhaps:
>   A DDP can form a DDP packet using a coded
>   packet by adding necessary information that can help to deliver the
>   DDP packet to the next node (e.g., the version of the DDP,
>   addresses, and session identifiers).
> -->
> 
> 
> 11) <!--[rfced] Please clarify the "/" in "point-to-point/one-hop".
> Does it mean "or"?
> 
> Original:
>   A BATS coding scheme is suitable for high data load
>   delivery in such networks without the requirement that the point-to-
>   point/one-hop communication is highly reliable.
> 
> Perhaps:
>   A BATS coding scheme is suitable for high data load
>   delivery in such networks without the requirement that the point-to-
>   point or one-hop communication is highly reliable.
> -->
> 
> 
> 12) <!--[rfced] We are having some difficulty understanding "same as the payload"
> in the sentence below. Please review and let us know how it should be updated.
> 
> Original:
>   In these schemes, the
>   source node attaches a signature to each packet to transmit, and the
>   signature is allowed to be processed by network coding same as the
>   payload.
> 
> Perhaps:
>   In these schemes, the
>   source node attaches a signature to each packet to transmit, and the
>   signature is allowed to be processed by network coding in the same
>   way as the payload.
> -->
> 
> 
> 13) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "type" attribute of each sourcecode element
> in the XML file to ensure correctness. If the current list of preferred
> values for "type" (https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt)
> does not contain an applicable type, then feel free to let us know. Also, it
> is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set.
> -->
> 
> 
> 14) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added the expansion for the following
> abbreviation per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please
> review each expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness.
> 
> Path MTU (PMTU)
> -->
> 
> 
> 15) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online
> Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
> and let us know if any changes are needed. For example, please consider
> whether "native" should be updated.
> 
> In addition, please consider whether "traditional" should be updated for clarity.
> While the NIST website
> <https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications-au\
> thor-instructions#table1>
> indicates that this term is potentially biased, it is also ambiguous.
> "Tradition" is a subjective term, as it is not the same for everyone.
> -->
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> RFC Editor/ap/ar
> 
> 
> On Jun 5, 2023, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> *****IMPORTANT*****
> 
> Updated 2023/06/05
> 
> 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/).
> 
> 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/).
> 
> *  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>.
> 
> *  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] (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], 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
> 
>    *  The archive itself:
>       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, 
>       [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/rfc9426.xml
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9426.html
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9426.pdf
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9426.txt
> 
> Diff file of the text:
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9426-diff.html
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9426-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
> 
> Diff of the XML: 
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9426-xmldiff1.html
> 
> 
> Tracking progress
> -----------------
> 
> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9426
> 
> Please let us know if you have any questions.  
> 
> Thank you for your cooperation,
> 
> RFC Editor
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC9426 (draft-irtf-nwcrg-bats-07)
> 
> Title            : BATS Coding Scheme for Multi-hop Data Transport
> Author(s)        : S. Yang, X. Huang, R. Yeung, J. Zao
> Document Shepherd: V. Roca
>