Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9556 <draft-irtf-t2trg-iot-edge-10> for your review

[Yong-Geun Hong <[e-mail]>]

Dear Alanna Paloma.

Thanks for your efforts.

I approve the publication of this draft.

Best regards.

Yong-Geun.

2024년 4월 2일 (화) 오전 9:06, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>님이 작성:

> Hi Xavier,
>
> Thank you for your reply. We’ve updated the files accordingly.
>
> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556.txt
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556.pdf
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556.xml
>
> The relevant diff files are posted here:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556-auth48diff.html (all AUTH48
> changes)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556-lastdiff.html (htmlwdiff diff
> between last version and this)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff
> between last version and this)
>
> We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status page
> below prior to moving this document forward in the publication process.
>
> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9556
>
> Thank you,
> RFC Editor/ap
>
> > On Apr 1, 2024, at 6:57 AM, Xavier De Foy <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Alanna,
> >
> > Here is my take on the use of "/" in the draft (if my co-authors agree)
> >
> > Original => my suggestion (note: additional note for the editor)
> >
> >
> > 2.1
> > and/or => and/or
> > 2.4
> > and/or => and/or
> > highly available/efficient => highly available and efficient
> > audio/video => audio and/or video
> > Artificial intelligence (AI) / machine learning (ML) systems =>
> Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) systems
> > 3.3
> > and/or => and/or
> > 4.2
> > devices/sensors => devices and sensors
> > remote/cloud => remote (e.g., cloud)
> > remote/cloud => remote (e.g., cloud)
> > IoT devices/computing nodes => The computing nodes
> > 4.3
> > network/compute/storage => network/compute/storage
> > (note to the editor: actually, if using / here is a problem, possibly
> use "network, compute, and storage", but I find the resulting sentence hard
> to parse)
> > 4.3.2
> > multi-vendor/operator => multi-vendor and multi-operator
> > 4.4.1
> > compute/storage => compute and storage
> > to/from => to or from
> > distributed/peer-to-peer => distributed (e.g., peer-to-peer)
> > 4.4.2
> > stored/cached data => data stored or cached
> > 4.4.3
> > local/mobile => local or mobile
> > 4.5.1
> > edge/local => local (e.g., edge)
> > functions/services => functions and services
> > 4.5.2
> > AI/ML => AI/ML (note: keep as is, this is a common contraction)
> >
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Xavier.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 2:26 PM
> > To: Jungha Hong <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: Ari Keränen <[e-mail]>; Colin Perkins <
> [e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Xavier De Foy
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> Kutscher, Dirk <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9556 <draft-irtf-t2trg-iot-edge-10> for
> your review
> >
> > Hi Jungha,
> >
> > Thank you for your reply. We have updated the files accordingly.
> >
> > Please note that we have one remaining query:
> >> ) Might it be helpful to the reader to clarify the slash in cases like
> the following (i.e., does it stand for "and", "or", or "and/or"?)?  Note:
> this appears in several places, the following is just an example.
> >>
> >> Original:
> >> The IoT gateway plays a common role in providing access to a
>
> >> heterogeneous set of IoT devices/sensors,...
>
>
> >>
> >> Perhaps:
>
> >> The IoT gateway plays a common role in providing access to a
>
> >> heterogeneous set of IoT devices and sensors,…
> >
> > …
> > The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556.txt
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556.pdf
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556.html
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556.xml
> >
> > The relevant diff files are posted here:
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556-diff.html (comprehensive
> diff)  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556-auth48diff.html (all
> AUTH48 changes)  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556-lastdiff.html
> (htmlwdiff diff between last version and this)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff
> between last version and this)
> >
> > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9556
> >
> > Thank you,
> > RFC Editor/ap
> >
> >> On Mar 22, 2024, at 9:48 AM, Jungha Hong <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Please find my answers inline with [JH].
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>
> >> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2024 1:23 AM
> >> To: Ari Keränen <[e-mail]>; Colin Perkins
> >> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Xavier
> >> De Foy <Xavier.DeFoy=[e-mail]>;
> >> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Kutscher, Dirk
> >> <[e-mail]>
> >> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> >> [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9556 <draft-irtf-t2trg-iot-edge-10> for
> >> your review
> >>
> >> Authors, Ari, and Colin,
> >>
> >> Thank you for your replies. We have updated the files accordingly.
> Please see below for our additional questions.
> >>
> >>> The text in sec 2.4 “Self-driving car”says :
> >>>  such as high-resolution cameras, radars, Light Detection and
> >>> Ranging (LiDAR), sonar sensors, and GPS systems  Since we say “radars”
> should we also say “LiDARs” or change “radars” to “radar”?
> >>
> >> ) Instead of pluralizing “LiDAR”, may we update it to “LiDAR systems”?
> >>
> >> Perhaps:
> >>  With a multitude of sensors, such as high-resolution
> >>  cameras, radars, Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) systems, sonar
> >>  sensors, and GPS systems, autonomous vehicles generate vast
> >>  amounts of real-time data.
> >>
> >> [JH] “LiDAR systems” is better.
> >>
> >> ) Might it be helpful to the reader to clarify the slash in cases like
> the following (i.e., does it stand for "and", "or", or "and/or"?)?  Note:
> this appears in several places, the following is just an example.
> >>
> >> Original:
> >> The IoT gateway plays a common role in providing access to a
>
> >> heterogeneous set of IoT devices/sensors,...
>
>
> >>
> >> Perhaps:
>
> >> The IoT gateway plays a common role in providing access to a
>
> >> heterogeneous set of IoT devices and sensors,…
> >>
> >>
> >>>> 6) <!--[rfced] Should "device" be updated to "devise" or is there
> >>>> another way to rephrase this sentence?
> >>>> Original:
> >>>> Conversely, a cloud back-end might want to device data even if it is
> >>>> currently asleep.
> >>>> Perhaps:
> >>>> Conversely, a cloud backend might want to access device data even if
> >>>> the device is currently asleep.
> >>>> -->
> >>> Good catch – we meant the second variant.
> >>
> >> ) Please clarify, should the sentence be updated to use “devise” or
> should it be updated to the Perhaps text?
> >>
> >> [JH] Please update it to the Perhaps text.
> >>
> >>
> >>>> 20) <!--[rfced] Throughout the document, there were certain places
> >>>> we may have expected a citation. Please review cases like the
> >>>> following (there may be more, just examples):
> >>>> As the number of people working on farming has been decreasing over
> >>>> time,...
> >>>> *Smart Construction*
> >>>> Safety is critical at construction sites. Every year, many
> >>>> construction workers lose their lives because of falls, collisions,
> >>>> electric shocks, and other accidents.
> >>>> Policy makers have begun to provide frameworks that limit the usage
> >>>> of personal data and impose strict requirements on data controllers
> >>>> and processors.
> >>>> -->
> >>> Good point – I suggest that we (authors) go through the document and
> add references to such statements.
> >>
> >> ) Please note that we still await word regarding where citations should
> be added.
> >>
> >> [JH] I have added 8 citations as follows:
> >>
> >> *Smart Factory*
> >> The use of edge computing in a smart factory [Jamilu] can reduce the
> >> cost of network and storage resources by reducing the communication
> >> load to the central data center or server.
> >>
> >> [Jamilu] Argungu, J., Idina, M., Chalawa, U., Ummar, M., Bello, S.,
> Arzika, I., and Mala, B.,
> >>   "A Survey of Edge Computing Approaches in Smart Factory",
> International Journal of Advanced
> >>          Research in Computer and Communication Engineering, Vol. 12,
> Issue 9, September 2023.
> >>
> >> *Smart Grid*
> >> In future smart city scenarios, the Smart Grid will be critical in
> >> ensuring highly available/efficient energy control in city-wide
> >> electricity management [Mehmood].
> >>
> >> [Mehmood] Mehmood, M., Oad, A., Abrar, M., Munir, H., Hasan, S.,
> Muqeet, H., and Golilarz, N.,
> >>           "Edge computing for IoT-enabled smart grid", Security and
> Communication Networks, Vol. 2021,
> >>           Article ID 5524025, https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5524025.
> >>
> >> *Smart Agriculture*
> >> In existing farms, simple systems such as management according to
> >> temperature and humidity can be easily and inexpensively implemented
> >> using IoT technology [Tanveer].
> >>
> >> As the number of people working on farming has been decreasing over
> >> time, increasing automation enabled by edge computing can be a driving
> >> force for future smart agriculture [OGrady].
> >>
> >> [Tanveer] Tanveer, S., Sree, N., Bhavana, B., and Varsha, D., "Smart
> Agriculture System using IoT",
> >>           2022 IEEE World Conference on Applied Intelligence and
> Computing (AIC), Sonbhadra, India, 2022,
> >>           pp. 482-486, doi: 10.1109/AIC55036.2022.9848948.
> >>
> >> [OGrady] O'Grady, M., Langton, D., and O'Hare, G., "Edge computing: A
> tractable model for smart agriculture?",
> >>          Artificial Intelligence in Agriculture, Vol. 3, September
> 2019, Pages 42-51, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aiia.2019.12.001.
> >>
> >> *Smart Construction*
> >> Safety is critical at construction sites. Every year, many
> >> construction workers lose their lives because of falls, collisions,
> >> electric shocks, and other accidents [BigRentz].
> >>
> >> Using edge computing[Yue], data generated at the construction site can
> >> be processed and analyzed on an edge server located within or near the
> >> site.
> >>
> >> [BigRentz] BigRentz, "41 Construction Safety Statistics for 2024",
> https://www.bigrentz.com/blog/construction-safety-statistics.
> >>
> >> [Yue] Yue, Q.,Mu, S., Zhang, L., Wang, Z., Zhang, Z., Zhang, X., Wang,
> Y., and Miao, Z.,
> >>      "Assisting Smart Construction With Reliable Edge Computing
> Technology", Frontiers in Energy Research, Sec. Smart Grids,
> >>       Vol. 10, 2022, https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2022.900298.
> >>
> >> *Self-Driving Car*
> >> Edge computing plays a crucial role in safety-focused self-driving car
> systems [Badjie].
> >>
> >> [Badjie] The Future of Autonomous Driving Systems with Edge Computing,
> >>
> https://medium.com/@bakarykumba1996/the-future-of-autonomous-driving-systems-with-edge-computing-8c919597c4ee.
>
> >>
> >> *Digital Twin*
> >> Decision makers can use digital twins to test and validate different
> >> strategies, identify inefficiencies, and optimize Performance
> [CertMagic].
> >>
> >> [CertMagic] CertMagic, "Digital Twin Technology: Simulating Real-World
> Scenarios for Enhanced Decision Making",
> >>
> https://certmagic.medium.com/digital-twin-technology-simulating-real-world-scenarios-for-enhanced-decision-making-8844c51e856d
> .
> >>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556.txt
> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556.pdf
> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556.html
> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556.xml
> >>
> >> The relevant diff files are posted here:
> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556-diff.html (comprehensive
> >> diff)  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556-auth48diff.html (all
> >> AUTH48 changes)
> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556-lastdiff.html (htmlwdiff
> >> diff between last version and this)
> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9556-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff
> >> between last version and this)
> >>
> >> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9556
> >>
> >> We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status
> page below prior to moving this document forward in the publication process.
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >> RFC Editor/ap
> >>
> >>> On Mar 22, 2024, at 7:51 AM, Ari Keränen <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> One small thing that I noticed while reading the diff (sending to
> retracted audience since it’s really nitty). The text in sec 2.4
> “Self-driving car”says :
> >>>  such as high-resolution cameras, radars, Light Detection and
> >>> Ranging (LiDAR), sonar sensors, and GPS systems  Since we say “radars”
> should we also say “LiDARs” or change “radars” to “radar”?
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Ari
> >>> From: irsg <[e-mail]> on behalf of Ari Keränen
> >>> <ari.keranen=[e-mail]>
> >>> Date: Friday, 22. March 2024 at 16.35
> >>> To: Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>, Xavier De Foy
> >>> <Xavier.DeFoy=[e-mail]>, Kutscher, Dirk
> >>> <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> >>> <[e-mail]>
> >>> Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
> >>> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
> >>> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> >>> <[e-mail]>
> >>> Subject: Re: [irsg] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9556
> >>> <draft-irtf-t2trg-iot-edge-10> for your review Hi Authors & Alanna,
> >>> I believe the “DDS” acronym should be actually “Data Distribution
> Service” instead of “Discovery Domain Set”.
> >>> Otherwise the updates as discussed below look good to me.
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Ari (as the doc shepherd)
> >>> From: Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>
> >>> Date: Thursday, 21. March 2024 at 20.49
> >>> To: Xavier De Foy <Xavier.DeFoy=[e-mail]>,
> >>> Kutscher, Dirk <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> >>> <[e-mail]>
> >>> Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
> >>> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> >>> <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
> >>> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Ari Keränen
> >>> <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> >>> <[e-mail]>
> >>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9556 <draft-irtf-t2trg-iot-edge-10>
> >>> for your review Authors,
> >>>
> >>> Thank you for your replies.  We have updated the files as requested.
> See below for additional questions and comments.
> >>>
> >>> ) Yong-Geun - In RFC 9453, your name appears as "Y-G.” in the header,
> and in this document, it appears as "Y.-G.” May we update this document to
> remove the period after “Y” to reflect RFC 9453?
> >>>
> >>> ) Might it be helpful to the reader to clarify the slash in cases like
> the following (i.e., does it stand for "and", "or", or "and/or"?)?  Note:
> this appears in several places, the following is just an example.
> >>>
> >>> Original:
> >>>  The IoT gateway plays a common role in providing access to a
>
> >>>  heterogeneous set of IoT devices/sensors,...
>
>
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps:
>
> >>>  The IoT gateway plays a common role in providing access to a
>
> >>>  heterogeneous set of IoT devices and sensors,…
> >>>
> >>>>> 6) <!--[rfced] Should "device" be updated to "devise" or is there
> >>>>> another way to rephrase this sentence?
> >>>>> Original:
> >>>>> Conversely, a cloud back-end might want to device data even if it
> >>>>> is currently asleep.
> >>>>> Perhaps:
> >>>>> Conversely, a cloud backend might want to access device data even
> >>>>> if the device is currently asleep.
> >>>>> -->
> >>>> Good catch – we meant the second variant.
> >>>
> >>> ) Please clarify, should the sentence be updated to use “devise” or
> should it be updated to the Perhaps text?
> >>>
> >>>>> 9) <!--[rfced] The SVG figures in Section 4.2 have their width and
> >>>>> height specified, which will make the artwork not scale. Please
> >>>>> consider whether scaling should be enabled. Scaling will allow the
> >>>>> figure to be resized when it is viewed on a mobile device; however,
> >>>>> there may be aesthetic trade-offs (e.g., image may appear too large
> >>>>> on a desktop screen or different figures may scale differently
> >>>>> based on their relative sizes). Please review the HTML and PDF
> >>>>> outputs and let us know how to proceed.
> >>>>> -->
> >>>> The figure should probably be scaled so that the font size in the
> figure corresponds to the one in the text and so that the figure is not
> wider than the text width. What is a good way to achieve this in a portable
> fashion?
> >>>
> >>> ) We have removed the width and height attributes from both SVG
> figures in order for them to scale. Please see the HTML and PDF outputs.
> >>>
> >>>>> 20) <!--[rfced] Throughout the document, there were certain places
> >>>>> we may have expected a citation. Please review cases like the
> >>>>> following (there may be more, just examples):
> >>>>> As the number of people working on farming has been decreasing over
> >>>>> time,...
> >>>>> *Smart Construction*
> >>>>> Safety is critical at construction sites. Every year, many
> >>>>> construction workers lose their lives because of falls, collisions,
> >>>>> electric shocks, and other accidents.
> >>>>> Policy makers have begun to provide frameworks that limit the usage
> >>>>> of personal data and impose strict requirements on data controllers
> >>>>> and processors.
> >>>>> -->
> >>>> Good point – I suggest that we (authors) go through the document and
> add references to such statements.
> >>>
> >>> ) Please note that we still await word regarding where citations
> should be added.
> >>> ---
> >>> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> >>>
> >>> https://www/.
> >>> rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9556.xml&data=05%7C02%7Cari.keranen%40e
> >>> r
> >>> icsson.com%7Ce84ce8fc30894c03e9f908dc49d78462%7C92e84cebfbfd47abbe520
> >>> 8
> >>> 0c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638466437584472449%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWI
> >>> j
> >>> oiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7
> >>> C
> >>> %7C&sdata=UvGwKQAJJYocuyF77hssONfQTP6o9OV0UprTpPbkYVc%3D&reserved=0
> >>>
> >>> https://www/.
> >>> rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9556.txt&data=05%7C02%7Cari.keranen%40e
> >>> r
> >>> icsson.com%7Ce84ce8fc30894c03e9f908dc49d78462%7C92e84cebfbfd47abbe520
> >>> 8
> >>> 0c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638466437584480911%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWI
> >>> j
> >>> oiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7
> >>> C
> >>> %7C&sdata=U2KKPmrb3or9wAvOffxi%2BymEVRnYJLPV1v4tPrL1ZNc%3D&reserved=0
> >>>
> >>> https://www/.
> >>> rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9556.html&data=05%7C02%7Cari.keranen%40
> >>> e
> >>> ricsson.com%7Ce84ce8fc30894c03e9f908dc49d78462%7C92e84cebfbfd47abbe52
> >>> 0
> >>> 80c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638466437584486868%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJW
> >>> I
> >>> joiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%
> >>> 7
> >>> C%7C&sdata=TlBLeSFoWY8AUuikG6NWi0%2FP3l126rr4lRqvlx3m5zo%3D&reserved=
> >>> 0
> >>>
> >>> https://www/.
> >>> rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9556.pdf&data=05%7C02%7Cari.keranen%40e
> >>> r
> >>> icsson.com%7Ce84ce8fc30894c03e9f908dc49d78462%7C92e84cebfbfd47abbe520
> >>> 8
> >>> 0c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638466437584491751%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWI
> >>> j
> >>> oiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7
> >>> C
> >>> %7C&sdata=aC7CtbDFryg%2FnYqlqiov%2FH777F7T4p2iW%2BSS4stxoqM%3D&reserv
> >>> e
> >>> d=0
> >>>
> >>> The relevant diff files have been posted here:
> >>>
> >>> https://www/.
> >>> rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9556-diff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cari.keran
> >>> e
> >>> n%40ericsson.com%7Ce84ce8fc30894c03e9f908dc49d78462%7C92e84cebfbfd47a
> >>> b
> >>> be52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638466437584496232%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d
> >>> 8
> >>> eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C
> >>> 0
> >>> %7C%7C%7C&sdata=qXsDiPUJDQjTJEf2WU3c%2FUH29Klagl%2BFBNUHMQ2HcNU%3D&re
> >>> s
> >>> erved=0 (comprehensive diff)
> >>>
> >>> https://www/.
> >>> rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9556-auth48diff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cari.
> >>> keranen%40ericsson.com%7Ce84ce8fc30894c03e9f908dc49d78462%7C92e84cebf
> >>> b
> >>> fd47abbe52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638466437584500657%7CUnknown%7CTWFpb
> >>> G
> >>> Zsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0
> >>> %
> >>> 3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=tR25pGpGhLaLxEy9A3R9wUNrCrfwv16bOz%2BZIyGEZrI%3
> >>> D
> >>> &reserved=0 (AUTH48 changes)
> >>>
> >>> Please review the document carefully and contact us with any further
> updates you may have.  Note that we do not make changes once a document is
> published as an RFC.
> >>>
> >>> We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status
> page below prior to moving this document forward in the publication process.
> >>>
> >>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
> >>>
> >>> https://www/.
> >>> rfc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9556&data=05%7C02%7Cari.keranen%40ericss
> >>> o
> >>> n.com%7Ce84ce8fc30894c03e9f908dc49d78462%7C92e84cebfbfd47abbe52080c6b
> >>> 8
> >>> 7953f%7C0%7C0%7C638466437584505133%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC
> >>> 4
> >>> wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&
> >>> s
> >>> data=kzFEwCnqIAUny0o13ijF5OqnFQ9N99%2F%2Fz4YshWSMh1s%3D&reserved=0
> >>>
> >>> Thank you,
> >>> RFC Editor/ap
> >>>
> >>>> On Mar 20, 2024, at 4:13 PM, Xavier De Foy <Xavier.DeFoy=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>> Thank you very much for the review and updates. I generally agree
> with Dirks replies and added a few minor comments with the marker [xdf]
> below. I believe at this stage there are a couple of open items (one about
> the figure, and one about possibly adding references).  About the figures,
> I don’t have a strong opinion (the current figures, which I guess are still
> not scaled, look fine to me on PC and phone, and I don’t know how to test
> with scaling). For the second point I’ll check with the editor of the use
> case section.
> >>>> Best Regards,
> >>>> Xavier.
> >>>> From: Dirk Kutscher <[e-mail]>
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 10:43 AM
> >>>> To: [e-mail]
> >>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Xavier De Foy
> >>>> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> >>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> >>>> [e-mail]
> >>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9556 <draft-irtf-t2trg-iot-edge-10>
> >>>> for your review  Hello, many thanks for the careful review and the
> >>>> questions.
> >>>> Some answers inline:
> >>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please note that 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:
> >>>> IoT Edge Challenges and Functions
> >>>> Current:
> >>>> Internet of Things (IoT) Edge Challenges and Functions
> >>>> -->
> >>>> ACK
> >>>> 2) <!--[rfced] Dirk and Matthias: Is there a "short name" we could
> >>>> use for your organizations in the header?--> For Dirk: HKUST(GZ)
> >>>> 3) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear
> >>>> in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
> >>>>   •
> >>>> in-network computing
> >>>>   • in network caching
> >>>>   • in network storage
> >>>>
> >>>> 4) <!--[rfced] To help with longevity, we have updated uses of
> >>>> "currently", "today" and the like to say "at the time of writing".
> >>>> Please let us know any objections.--> ACK
> >>>> 5) <!--[rfced] Is the meaning of this sentence that IoT technology
> >>>> is being applied in more types of domains? Or that the applications
> >>>> listed are more demanding than other domains? (That is, is the
> >>>> healthcare domain itself more demanding or is there some application
> >>>> inside the healthcare domain that is more demanding?)
> >>>> Original:
> >>>> IoT technology is used with increasingly demanding applications, for
> >>>> example, in industrial, automotive and healthcare domains, leading
> >>>> to new challenges.
> >>>> Perhpas A:
> >>>> IoT technology is used with increasingly demanding applications in
> >>>> domains such as industrial, automotive, and healthcare, which leads
> >>>> to new challenges.
> >>>> Perhaps B:
> >>>> IoT technology is used with increasingly demanding applications, for
> >>>> example, the industrial, automotive, and healthcare domains, leading
> >>>> to new challenges.
> >>>> -->
> >>>> Variant A sounds good.
> >>>> 6) <!--[rfced] Should "device" be updated to "devise" or is there
> >>>> another way to rephrase this sentence?
> >>>> Original:
> >>>> Conversely, a cloud back-end might want to device data even if it is
> >>>> currently asleep.
> >>>> Perhaps:
> >>>> Conversely, a cloud backend might want to access device data even if
> >>>> the device is currently asleep.
> >>>> -->
> >>>> Good catch – we meant the second variant.
> >>>> 7) <!--[rfced] The following three sentences use "typically". We
> >>>> will update to use another word to reduce redundancy unless we hear
> >>>> objection.
> >>>> Original:
> >>>> The service and application life-cycle is typically using an
> >>>> NFV-like management and orchestration model.
> >>>> The platform typically enables advertising or consuming services
> >>>> hosted on the platform (e.g., the Mp1 interface in ETSI MEC supports
> >>>> service discovery and communication), and enables communication with
> >>>> local and remote endpoints (e.g., message routing function in IoT
> >>>> gateways). The platform is typically extensible to edge applications
> >>>> because it can advertise a service that other edge applications can
> >>>> consume.
> >>>> Perhaps:
> >>>> Typically, the service and application life cycle is using an
> >>>> NFV-like management and orchestration model.
> >>>> The platform generally enables advertising or consuming services
> >>>> hosted on the platform (e.g., the Mp1 interface in ETSI MEC supports
> >>>> service discovery and communication), and enables communication with
> >>>> local and remote endpoints (e.g., message routing function in IoT
> >>>> gateways). The platform is usually extensible to edge applications
> >>>> because it can advertise a service that other edge applications can
> >>>> consume.
> >>>> -->
> >>>> Yes, thank you.
> >>>> 8) <!--[rfced] Please review the following questions related to this
> text:
> >>>> a) We are having trouble parsing "the list associated logical
> >>>> functions". Is "list" intended to be a noun or a verb?
> >>>> b) The placement of "in this section" is somewhat jarring (and makes
> >>>> two introductory phrases in the sentence). May we update as follows?
> >>>> Original:
> >>>> Although there are many approaches to edge computing, in this
> >>>> section, we attempt to lay out a general model and the list
> >>>> associated logical functions.
> >>>> Perhaps A (list is a noun):
> >>>> Although there are many approaches to edge computing, this section
> >>>> lays out an attempt at a general model and the list of associated
> >>>> logical functions.
> >>>> Perhaps B (list is a verb):
> >>>> Although there are many approaches to edge computing, this sections
> >>>> lays out an attempt at a general model and lists associated logical
> >>>> functions.
> >>>> -->
> >>>> Variant B sounds good.
> >>>> 9) <!--[rfced] The SVG figures in Section 4.2 have their width and
> >>>> height specified, which will make the artwork not scale. Please
> >>>> consider whether scaling should be enabled. Scaling will allow the
> >>>> figure to be resized when it is viewed on a mobile device; however,
> >>>> there may be aesthetic trade-offs (e.g., image may appear too large
> >>>> on a desktop screen or different figures may scale differently based
> >>>> on their relative sizes). Please review the HTML and PDF outputs and
> >>>> let us know how to proceed.
> >>>> -->
> >>>> The figure should probably be scaled so that the font size in the
> figure corresponds to the one in the text and so that the figure is not
> wider than the text width. What is a good way to achieve this in a portable
> fashion?
> >>>> [xdf] I don’t have a strong opinion on this, but after checking the
> pdf and html links you provide at the end of this email, on a laptop and on
> a phone, the 2 figures look fine as they are right now.
> >>>> 10) <!--[rfced] In the following text, how does the last clause
> >>>> relate to the rest of the sentence? If our suggested rephrase does
> >>>> not correctly capture your intent, please let us know how to
> >>>> rephrase.
> >>>> Original:
> >>>> In a distributed image processing application, some image processing
> >>>> functions can be similarly executed at the edge or in the cloud,
> >>>> while preprocessing, which helps limiting the amount of uploaded
> >>>> data, is performed by the IoT device.
> >>>> Perhaps:
> >>>> Similarly, in a distributed image processing application, some image
> >>>> processing functions can be executed at the edge or in the cloud,
> >>>> which helps with limiting the amount of uploaded data to be
> >>>> performed by the IoT device.
> >>>> -->
> >>>> How about this:
> >>>> Similarly, in a distributed image processing application, some image
> >>>> processing functions can be executed at the edge or in the cloud. To
> limit the amount of data to be uploaded to central cloud functions, IoT
> edge devices may pre-process data.
> >>>> 11) <!--[rfced] Should "IRTF attendees" be further clarified? Is
> >>>> this a particular meeting? Participants of all Research Groups?--> I
> >>>> suggest "participants of T2TRG meetings".
> >>>> 12) <!--[rfced] To avoid the awkward readability of both "used" and
> >>>> "using" in the same sentence, may we make the following update?
> >>>> Original:
> >>>> Broker-based solutions can be used, for example, using an IoT
> >>>> gateway as a broker to discover IoT resources.
> >>>> Perhaps:
> >>>> Broker-based solutions can be implemented; an example would be using
> >>>> an IoT gateway as a broker to discover IoT resources.
> >>>> -->
> >>>> How about:
> >>>> "In a broker-based system, an IoT gateway can act as a broker to
> discover IoT resources."
> >>>> 13) <!--[rfced] Please review our update to "in replacement or
> complement"
> >>>> and let us know if it does not capture your intended meaning.
> >>>> Original:
> >>>> More decentralized solutions can also be used in replacement or
> >>>> complement, for example, CoAP enables multicast discovery of an IoT
> >>>> device, and CoAP service discovery enables obtaining a list of
> >>>> resources made available by this device [RFC7252].
> >>>> Current:
> >>>> More decentralized solutions can also be used in replacement of or
> >>>> in complement to the broker-based solutions; for example, CoAP
> >>>> enables multicast discovery of an IoT device and CoAP service
> >>>> discovery enables one to obtain a list of resources made available
> >>>> by this device [RFC7252].
> >>>> -->
> >>>> Yes, much better.
> >>>> 14) <!--[rfced] Please review our update to the following text to
> >>>> ensure we've correctly captured your intended meaning. Because this
> >>>> text includes an example within an example and both are within a
> >>>> list, please review carefully.
> >>>> Original:
> >>>> * Adapting cloud management platforms to the edge, to account for
> >>>> its distributed nature, e.g., using Conflict-free Replicated Data
> >>>> Types (CRDT) [Jeffery], heterogeneity and customization, e.g., using
> >>>> intent-based management mechanisms [Cao], and limited resources.
> >>>> Current:
> >>>> * Adapting cloud management platforms to the edge to account for its
> >>>> distributed nature, e.g., using Conflict-free Replicated Data Types
> >>>> (CRDTs) [Jeffery], heterogeneity and customization (e.g., using
> >>>> intent-based management mechanisms [Cao]), and limited resources
> >>>> -->
> >>>> Thanks for spotting this. This sentence seems problematic for a
> couple of reasons. The examples are quite specific. If co-authors and our
> shepherd agree, we could simplify as follows:
> >>>> Adapting cloud management platforms to the edge to account for its
> distributed nature, heterogeneity, need for customization, and limited
> resources.
> >>>> [xdf] sounds good to me. I would propose keeping the references, by
> adding a sentence after the one proposed by Dirk. Something like this (if
> co-authors and shepherd agree):
> >>>> OLD:
> >>>> * Adapting cloud management platforms to the edge, to account for
> >>>> its distributed nature, e.g., using Conflict-free Replicated Data
> >>>> Types (CRDT) [Jeffery], heterogeneity and customization, e.g., using
> >>>> intent-based management mechanisms [Cao], and limited resources.
> >>>> NEW:
> >>>> * Adapting cloud management platforms to the edge to account for its
> distributed nature, heterogeneity, need for customization, and limited
> resources. For example, using Conflict-free Replicated Data Types (CRDTs)
> [Jeffery] or intent-based management mechanisms [Cao].
> >>>> 15) <!--[rfced] How can we break this run-on sentence up for the
> reader?
> >>>> Original:
> >>>> * (Computation placement) Selecting, in a centralized or
> >>>> distributed/peer-to-peer manner, an appropriate compute device based
> >>>> on available resources, location of data input and data sinks,
> >>>> compute node properties, etc., and with varying goals including
> >>>> end-to-end latency, privacy, high availability, energy conservation,
> >>>> or network efficiency, for example, using load- balancing techniques
> >>>> to avoid congestion.
> >>>> Perhaps:
> >>>> * Computation placement: in a centralized or
> >>>> distributed/peer-to-peer manner, selecting an appropriate compute
> >>>> device. The selection is based on available resources, location of
> >>>> data input and data sinks, compute node properties, etc. with
> >>>> varying goals. These goals include end-to-end latency, privacy, high
> >>>> availability, energy conservation, or network efficiency. For
> >>>> example, using load-balancing techniques to avoid congestion.
> >>>> -->
> >>>> Yes, much better – thanks!
> >>>> 16) <!--[rfced] We are having difficulty parsing the parenthetical.
> >>>> Please review and let us know how it may be updated for clarity.
> >>>> Original:
> >>>> * Maintaining consistency, freshness, reliability, and privacy of
> >>>> stored/cached data in systems that are distributed, constrained, and
> >>>> dynamic (e.g., owing to end devices and computing nodes churn or
> >>>> mobility), and which can have additional data governance constraints
> >>>> on data storage location.
> >>>> -->
> >>>> I suggest the following:
> >>>>   • Maintaining consistency, freshness, reliability, and privacy of
> >>>> stored/cached data in systems that are distributed, constrained, and
> dynamic (e.g., due to node mobility, energy-saving regimes, and
> disruptions) and which can have additional data governance constraints on
> data storage location.
> >>>> 17) <!--[rfced] Is the following sentence intended to be a list of
> >>>> characteristics of communication brokering? If so, may we update it
> >>>> as follows?
> >>>> Original:
> >>>> Communication brokering is a typical function of IoT edge computing
> >>>> that facilitates communication with IoT devices, enabling clients to
> >>>> register as recipients for data from devices, as well as forwarding/
> >>>> routing of traffic to or from IoT devices, enabling various data
> >>>> discovery and redistribution patterns, for example, north-south with
> >>>> clouds, east-west with other edge devices
> >>>> [I-D.mcbride-edge-data-discovery-overview].
> >>>> Perhaps:
> >>>> Communication brokering is a typical function of IoT edge computing
> >>>> that facilitates communication with IoT devices, enables clients to
> >>>> register as recipients for data from devices forwards/routes of
> >>>> traffic to or from IoT devices, enables various data discovery and
> >>>> redistribution patterns (for example, north-south with clouds and
> >>>> east-west with other edge devices
> >>>> [I-D.mcbride-edge-data-discovery-overview].
> >>>> -->
> >>>> Thanks, much better. Some additional edits:
> >>>> Communication brokering is a typical function of IoT edge computing
> >>>> that facilitates communication with IoT devices, enables clients to
> >>>> register as recipients for data from devices, forwards traffic to or
> >>>> from IoT devices, enables various data discovery and redistribution
> >>>> patterns (for example, north-south with clouds and east-west with
> >>>> other edge devices [I-D.mcbride-edge-data-discovery-overview].
> >>>> [xdf] minor typo: need to close the parenthesis at the end of the
> paragraph.
> >>>> 18) <!--[rfced] It's unclear how "dynamic" fits into the sentence
> below.
> >>>> Is it meant to read "dynamic environtments"?
> >>>> Original:
> >>>> * Addressing concerns such as limited resources, privacy, dynamic,
> >>>> and heterogeneous environments to deploy machine learning at the
> >>>> edge:
> >>>> Perhaps:
> >>>> * Addressing concerns such as limited resources, privacy, and
> >>>> dynamic and heterogeneous environments to deploy machine learning at
> >>>> the
> >>>> edge:
> >>>> -->
> >>>> Yes.
> >>>> 19) <!-- [rfced] Please ensure that the guidelines listed in Section
> >>>> 2.1 of RFC 5743 have been adhered to in this document. --> IMO,
> "Status of This Memo" has all the required information.
> >>>> 20) <!--[rfced] Throughout the document, there were certain places
> >>>> we may have expected a citation. Please review cases like the
> >>>> following (there may be more, just examples):
> >>>> As the number of people working on farming has been decreasing over
> >>>> time,...
> >>>> *Smart Construction*
> >>>> Safety is critical at construction sites. Every year, many
> >>>> construction workers lose their lives because of falls, collisions,
> >>>> electric shocks, and other accidents.
> >>>> Policy makers have begun to provide frameworks that limit the usage
> >>>> of personal data and impose strict requirements on data controllers
> >>>> and processors.
> >>>> -->
> >>>> Good point – I suggest that we (authors) go through the document and
> add references to such statements.
> >>>> 21) <!-- [rfced] Throughout the text, the following terminology
> >>>> appears to be used inconsistently. Please review these occurrences
> >>>> and let us know if/how they may be made consistent.
> >>>> a) Capitalization
> >>>> Big Data vs. big data
> >>>> Cloud vs. cloud
> >>>> Industrial IoT vs. industrial IoT
> >>>> Smart Grid vs. smart grid
> >>>> Thing vs. thing
> >>>> Edge vs. edge
> >>>> I'm in favor of using lowercase for all terms except for "Thing".
> >>>> b) hyphenation
> >>>> edge computing vs. edge-computing (when in attributive position
> >>>> (before a noun))
> >>>> -->
> >>>> How about just using "edge computing"?
> >>>> 22) <!-- [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.
> >>>> Content Delivery Network (CDN)
> >>>> Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) Discovery Domain Set (DDS)
> >>>> Information-Centric Networking (ICN) Light Detection and Ranging
> >>>> (LiDAR) Multi-access Edge Computing (MEC) Message Queuing Telemetry
> >>>> Transport (MQTT) Open Platform Communications Unified Architecture
> >>>> (OPC UA) Software-Defined Networking (SDN) Virtual Machine (VM)
> >>>> -->
> >>>> Looks good.
> >>>> 23) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of
> >>>> the online Style Guide <https://w/
> >>>> ww.rfc-editor.org%2Fstyleguide%2Fpart2%2F%23inclusive_language&data=
> >>>> 05%7C02%7Cari.keranen%40ericsson.com%7Ce84ce8fc30894c03e9f908dc49d78
> >>>> 462%7C92e84cebfbfd47abbe52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638466437584514144%
> >>>> 7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6
> >>>> Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VnIvjPVfSj92XST0UrVrZ1%2FJ
> >>>> jSaC864NLBEU00gSYYI%3D&reserved=0>
> >>>> 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://w/
> >>>> ww.nist.gov%2Fnist-research-library%2Fnist-technical-series-publicat
> >>>> ions-author-instructions%23table1&data=05%7C02%7Cari.keranen%40erics
> >>>> son.com%7Ce84ce8fc30894c03e9f908dc49d78462%7C92e84cebfbfd47abbe52080
> >>>> c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638466437584520753%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWI
> >>>> joiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C
> >>>> %7C%7C&sdata=YpmQ82BhRLWV6uZFaYqaTzsvN08TKVXmZSvjlL2RGJw%3D&reserved
> >>>> =0> indicates that this term is potentially biased, it is also
> >>>> ambiguous.
> >>>> "Tradition" is a subjective term, as it is not the same for everyone.
> >>>> -->
> >>>> Personally, I don't think "native" and "tradition" needs updating
> (but open to suggestions from co-authors).
> >>>> Many thanks for the careful review and the useful suggestions!
> >>>> Best regards,
> >>>> Dirk
> >>>> Thank you.
> >>>> RFC Editor/ap/mf
> >>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
> >>>> Updated 2024/03/18
> >>>> 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://ma/
> >>>> ilarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fietf-announce%2Fyb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxI
> >>>> Ae6P8O4Zc&data=05%7C02%7Cari.keranen%40ericsson.com%7Ce84ce8fc30894c
> >>>> 03e9f908dc49d78462%7C92e84cebfbfd47abbe52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C6384
> >>>> 66437584538705%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV
> >>>> 2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nGTm%2F8DCz
> >>>> J1MuFgkfRaS9LSNTRxPZmrwgXMfzyoAe6Y%3D&reserved=0
> >>>> * The archive itself:
> >>>> https://ma/
> >>>> ilarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fbrowse%2Fauth48archive%2F&data=05%7C02%7
> >>>> Cari.keranen%40ericsson.com%7Ce84ce8fc30894c03e9f908dc49d78462%7C92e
> >>>> 84cebfbfd47abbe52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638466437584543163%7CUnknown
> >>>> %7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiL
> >>>> CJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=SudpBSCij8edoGrqCDfHkTHOFIXZ8kmb50O
> >>>> XIm%2BH6j8%3D&reserved=0
> >>>> * 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://ww/
> >>>> w.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9556.xml&data=05%7C02%7Cari.keranen%
> >>>> 40ericsson.com%7Ce84ce8fc30894c03e9f908dc49d78462%7C92e84cebfbfd47ab
> >>>> be52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638466437584547126%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3
> >>>> d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D
> >>>> %7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=KdSE6m1NJqWxMeMX%2FDJxQ2oFObt4shNMq%2BIqpxpdKTw%
> >>>> 3D&reserved=0
> >>>> https://ww/
> >>>> w.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9556.html&data=05%7C02%7Cari.keranen
> >>>> %40ericsson.com%7Ce84ce8fc30894c03e9f908dc49d78462%7C92e84cebfbfd47a
> >>>> bbe52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638466437584551533%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb
> >>>> 3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3
> >>>> D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NomIeyAnn%2BsOiWL22E5yM0VgVXoVq3cCFPTnK42kRTI%3
> >>>> D&reserved=0
> >>>> https://ww/
> >>>> w.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9556.pdf&data=05%7C02%7Cari.keranen%
> >>>> 40ericsson.com%7Ce84ce8fc30894c03e9f908dc49d78462%7C92e84cebfbfd47ab
> >>>> be52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638466437584555905%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3
> >>>> d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D
> >>>> %7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lbVjQbXdftUkixDMpukzb1zsw8A867gFVmbun04MS%2BQ%3D
> >>>> &reserved=0
> >>>> https://ww/
> >>>> w.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9556.txt&data=05%7C02%7Cari.keranen%
> >>>> 40ericsson.com%7Ce84ce8fc30894c03e9f908dc49d78462%7C92e84cebfbfd47ab
> >>>> be52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638466437584560260%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3
> >>>> d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D
> >>>> %7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=EJLtOrMGdFsYJfOSdoIrVqjFL3tXPI21umiD%2BMNF2p0%3D
> >>>> &reserved=0
> >>>> Diff file of the text:
> >>>> https://ww/
> >>>> w.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9556-diff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cari.ke
> >>>> ranen%40ericsson.com%7Ce84ce8fc30894c03e9f908dc49d78462%7C92e84cebfb
> >>>> fd47abbe52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638466437584564576%7CUnknown%7CTWFp
> >>>> bGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6
> >>>> Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WyMuoBr8IOQs1pQg2r4ZWe27NnMbBabaj8JHYizeLs
> >>>> 4%3D&reserved=0
> >>>> https://ww/
> >>>> w.rfc-editor.org
> %2Fauthors%2Frfc9556-rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cari.keranen%
> 40ericsson.com%7Ce84ce8fc30894c03e9f908dc49d78462%7C92e84cebfbfd47abbe52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638466437584568960%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dQ4vn44aqsVouGJcUtusKAbPbo5lSKpKhGvFUSiSprA%3D&reserved=0
> (side by side) Diff of the XML:
> >>>> https://ww/
> >>>> w.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9556-xmldiff1.html&data=05%7C02%7Car
> >>>> i.keranen%40ericsson.com%7Ce84ce8fc30894c03e9f908dc49d78462%7C92e84c
> >>>> ebfbfd47abbe52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638466437584573332%7CUnknown%7C
> >>>> TWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJX
> >>>> VCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=tbzNyICnGjlPIu%2F%2B7dZLpxG51bpOrbp0%2
> >>>> FlqNqSbqSzI%3D&reserved=0 The following files are provided to
> >>>> facilitate creation of your own diff files of the XML.
> >>>> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
> >>>> https://ww/
> >>>> w.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9556.original.v2v3.xml&data=05%7C02%
> >>>> 7Cari.keranen%40ericsson.com%7Ce84ce8fc30894c03e9f908dc49d78462%7C92
> >>>> e84cebfbfd47abbe52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638466437584577745%7CUnknow
> >>>> n%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwi
> >>>> LCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fNcgFCayFQT7%2Fix15yulkzG1hNcPvUuw
> >>>> LietVv8csLI%3D&reserved=0
> >>>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format
> >>>> updates
> >>>> only:
> >>>> https://ww/
> >>>> w.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9556.form.xml&data=05%7C02%7Cari.ker
> >>>> anen%40ericsson.com%7Ce84ce8fc30894c03e9f908dc49d78462%7C92e84cebfbf
> >>>> d47abbe52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638466437584582102%7CUnknown%7CTWFpb
> >>>> GZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6M
> >>>> n0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pLhJh0kYdZqj0WrixWHmFyc0rrjnrXnh4njB%2BW2vb
> >>>> yI%3D&reserved=0
> >>>> Tracking progress
> >>>> -----------------
> >>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
> >>>> https://ww/
> >>>> w.rfc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9556&data=05%7C02%7Cari.keranen%40eri
> >>>> csson.com%7Ce84ce8fc30894c03e9f908dc49d78462%7C92e84cebfbfd47abbe520
> >>>> 80c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638466437584586464%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJ
> >>>> WIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%
> >>>> 7C%7C%7C&sdata=aHlxHfX%2Fwk%2Ft6BR7cS4MgQoxbWExVG3I%2FJE%2FoSz5%2Fro
> >>>> %3D&reserved=0 Please let us know if you have any questions.
> >>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
> >>>> RFC Editor
> >>>> --------------------------------------
> >>>> RFC9556 (draft-irtf-t2trg-iot-edge-10) Title : IoT Edge Challenges
> >>>> and Functions
> >>>> Author(s) : J. Hong, Y. Hong, X. de Foy, M. Kovatsch, E. Schooler,
> >>>> D. Kutscher WG Chair(s) :
> >>>> Area Director(s) :
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Defining the XR Experience: Enabling the Immersivity Ecosystem This
> >>>> e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to
> which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
> confidential and/or otherwise protected from disclosure to anyone other
> than its intended recipient. Unintended transmission shall not constitute
> waiver of any privilege or confidentiality obligation. If you received this
> communication in error, please do not review, copy or distribute it, notify
> me immediately by email, and delete the original message and any
> attachments. Unless expressly stated in this e-mail, nothing in this
> message or any attachment should be construed as a digital or electronic
> signature.
>
>
>