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

[Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>]

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/
>