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

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

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 thehttps://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 Briscoehttp://bobbriscoe.net/
>>>>
>> -- 
>> ________________________________________________________________
>> Bob Briscoehttp://bobbriscoe.net/
>>

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoehttp://bobbriscoe.net/