Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9566 <draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-11> for your review

[Balázs Varga A <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jean,

Thanks. Regarding the additional question: in Section 4.2. Should "on" be instead "an" in the following sentence?
--------------
Original:
    The PREOF capable DetNet IP encapsulation builds on encapsulating
    DetNet PseudoWire (PW) directly over UDP.
Perhaps:
    The PREOF-capable DetNet IP encapsulation builds an encapsulating
    DetNet pseudowire (PW) directly over UDP.
-------------

<Balazs> I would prefer to leave the original version, however I am not a native speaker and may not recognize the difference.
So, let me try to clarify what we intend to say here:
The method described in this draft to construct "The PREOF-capable DetNet IP encapsulation" is based on (1) using the DetNet PW
technology and (2) encapsulate the DetNet PW directly over UDP.
If You think that this is better described by using "an" in the above sentence, I can live with that change.

Many thanks & Kind regards
Bala'zs


-----Original Message-----
From: Jean Mahoney <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 7:26 PM
To: Andrew G. Malis <[e-mail]>; Balázs Varga A <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; Janos Farkas <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9566 <draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-11> for your review

[Ritkán kap e-maileket [e-mail]. Miért fontos ez a https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]

Bala'zs, Andy,

Thank you for your replies. We have updated the document:

    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566-lastrfcdiff.html (these changes side by side)
    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.txt
    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.pdf
    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.html
    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.xml
    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566-diff.html
    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566-rfcdiff.html

We have also noted your approvals on the AUTH48 status page:

    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9566

We have an additional question: in Section 4.2. Should "on" be instead "an" in the following sentence?

Original:
    The PREOF capable DetNet IP encapsulation builds on encapsulating
    DetNet PseudoWire (PW) directly over UDP.

Perhaps:
    The PREOF-capable DetNet IP encapsulation builds an encapsulating
    DetNet pseudowire (PW) directly over UDP.

We will await further word from you and Janos regarding other AUTH48 changes and/or approval.

Best regards,
RFC Editor/jm


On 4/10/24 10:16 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> I also agree, with the changes listed below the document is ready for
> publication.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 10:16 AM Balázs Varga A
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi JM,
>     Many thanks for your great comments/suggestions. Please find
>     reactions inline.
>     With these changes I confirm that the document is ready for publication.
>     Kind regards
>     Bala'zs
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2024 12:18 AM
>     To: Balázs Varga A <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Janos Farkas
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>;
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9566
>     <draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-11> for your review
>
>     Authors,
>
>     While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as
>     necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>
>     1) <!-- [rfced] Title. FYI, we have expanded PREOF in the title to
>     match our guidance on expanding abbreviations upon first use. Could
>     the title be shortened by removing an instance of "DetNet"?
>
>     Original:
>        Deterministic Networking (DetNet): DetNet PREOF via MPLS over
> UDP/IP
>
>     Current:
>        Deterministic Networking (DetNet): DetNet Packet Replication,
>        Elimination, and Ordering Functions (PREOF) via MPLS over
> UDP/IP
>
>     Perhaps:
>        Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Packet Replication, Elimination,
>        and Ordering Functions (PREOF) via MPLS over UDP/IP
>     -->
>     <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Thanks.
>
>
>     2) <!-- [rfced] Title. FYI, we have made the short title, which is
>     displayed in the header of the PDF, consistent with the title of the
>     RFC. Please let us know if any changes are necessary.
>
>     Original:
>        PREOF DetNet IP
>
>     Current:
>        DetNet PREOF via MPLS over UDP/IP
>     -->
>     <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Thanks.
>
>
>     3) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear
>     in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search
>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/search>.
>     -->
>     <Balazs> Suggested keywords: DetNet, IP Data Plane, Service
>     sub-layer, Replication, Elimination, Ordering.
>
>
>     4) <!-- [rfced] Section 3. Because "practically" usually means
>     "almost" and "gains" typically means "acquires", may we update the
>     following sentence?
>
>     Original:
>         The described solution practically gains from MPLS header fields
>         without requiring the support of the MPLS forwarding plane.
>
>     Perhaps:
>         The described solution leverages MPLS header fields
>         without requiring the support of the MPLS forwarding plane.
>     -->
>     <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Thanks.
>
>
>     5) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.3. FYI, we have updated the following
>     sentence to improve clarity. Please let us know if any updates are
>     necessary.
>
>     Original:
>         Note, that Service-IDs is a local ID on the receiver side providing
>         identification of the DetNet flow at the downstream DetNet service
>         sub-layer receiver.
>
>     Current:
>         Note that the Service-ID is a local ID on the receiver side that
>         identifies the DetNet flow at the downstream DetNet service
>         sub-layer receiver.
>     -->
>     <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Thanks.
>
>
>     6) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.4. Does the sentence below mean that the
>     nodes are configured with the aggregation method?
>
>     Original:
>         The option used for aggregation is known by configuration of the
>         aggregation/de-aggregation nodes.
>
>     Perhaps:
>         The aggregation method is configured in the
>         aggregation/de-aggregation nodes.
>     -->
>     <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Thanks.
>
>
>     7) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.5. Is only a Service-ID used to identify a
>     flow or is a Service-ID used with other information to identify a flow?
>
>     Original:
>         A Service-ID can be allocated to be unique and enabling
>         DetNet flow identification regardless of which input interface
>     or UDP
>         tunnel the packet is received.
>
>     Perhaps:
>         A unique Service-ID can be allocated and can be used
>         to identify a DetNet flow regardless of which input interface or UDP
>         tunnel receives the packet.
>     -->
>     <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Thanks. If the Service-ID is unique,
>     no other information is needed.
>
>
>     8) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.5. The following sentence implies that
>     there is a single header that contains both UDP and IP information.
>
>     Original:
>         ...each member flow requires their own Service-ID, UDP
>         and IP header information.
>
>     Perhaps:
>         ...each member flow requires its own Service-ID, UDP
>         header information, and IP header information.
>     -->
>     <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Thanks.
>
>
>     9) <!-- [rfced] Section 4.5. Is part of the processing the
>     assignment of the Service-ID? Is the header information assigned?
>
>     Original:
>         The incoming PREOF processing can be implemented via the
>     provisioning
>         of received Service-ID, UDP and IP header information.
>
>     Possibly:
>         The incoming PREOF processing can be implemented by assigning
>         a Service-ID to the received DetNet flow and processing the
>         information in the UDP and IP headers.
>     -->
>     <Balazs> Assigning a Service-ID is a prerequisite for data plane
>     processing.
>     So, I think your suggestion describes better the operation. Thanks.
>
>
>     10) <!-- [rfced] Section 5. Does the following list item contain
>     multiple things (e.g., "PREOF and related Service-IDs")? If so,
>     should they be on separate lines?
>
>     Original:
>         *  PREOF + related Service-ID(s).
>     -->
>     <Balazs> Good catch, here we have two information elements. Proposed
>     change:
>     Original:
>         *  PREOF + related Service-ID(s).
>     NEW:
>         *  Type of PREOF to be executed on the DetNet flow.
>         *  Service-ID(s) used by the member flows.
>     END
>
>
>     11) <!-- [rfced] Informative References. FYI, we have updated the
>     following reference to use the URL provided by the DOI. Please let
>     us know if any updates are necessary.
>
>     Original:
>         [IEEE8021CB]
>                    IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
>                    networks - Frame Replication and Elimination for
>                    Reliability", DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2017.8091139, October
>                    2017,
>
>     <https://standards.ieee.org/standard/802_1CB-2017.html
>     <https://standards.ieee.org/standard/802_1CB-2017.html>>.
>
>     Current:
>         [IEEE8021CB]
>                    IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
>                    networks - Frame Replication and Elimination for
>                    Reliability", IEEE Std 802.1CB-2017,
>                    DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2017.8091139, October 2017,
>                    <https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2017.8091139
>     <https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2017.8091139>>.
>     -->
>     <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Thanks.
>
>
>     12) <!-- [rfced] Informative References. Because the original URL
>     (https://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/cv-drafts/d1/802-1CBcv-d1-2.pdf <https://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/cv-drafts/d1/802-1CBcv-d1-2.pdf>) requires credentials to access, we recommend updating the reference to point to a landing page. We also note that the draft has been published as an Amendment.
>
>     Current:
>         [IEEEP8021CBcv]
>                    Kehrer, S., "FRER YANG Data Model and Management
>                    Information Base Module", IEEE P802.1CBcv
>                    /D1.2 P802.1CBcv, March 2021,
>
>     <https://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/cv-drafts/d1/802-
>     <https://www.ieee802.org/1/files/private/cv-drafts/d1/802->
>                    1CBcv-d1-2.pdf>.
>
>     Perhaps:
>         [IEEE8021CBcv]
>                    IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
>                    networks - Frame Replication and Elimination for
>                    Reliability - Amendment 1: Information Model, YANG Data
>                    Model, and Management Information Base Module", Amendment
>                    to IEEE Std 802.1CB-2017, IEEE Std 802.1CBcv-2021,
>                    DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.9715061, February 2022,
>                    <https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.9715061
>     <https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2022.9715061>>.
>     -->
>     <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Thanks.
>
>
>     13) <!-- [rfced] FYI, we have added expansions for abbreviations
>     upon first use per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide").
>     Please review each expansion in the document carefully to ensure
>     correctness.
>     -->
>     <Balazs> Your changes are OK. Thanks.
>
>
>     14) <!-- [rfced] Terminology. May we hyphenate "PREOF capable" for
>     ease of reading? For example:
>
>     Original:
>         Figure 5 shows using PREOF in a PREOF capable DetNet IP network...
>
>     Perhaps
>         Figure 5 shows using PREOF in a PREOF-capable DetNet IP network...
>     -->
>     <Balazs> Your suggestion is OK. Please do this change also in the
>     titles of Fig2, Fig3, and 4.6 Section. Many thanks.
>
>
>     15) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of
>     the online Style Guide
>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language
>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>>
>     and let us know if any changes are needed.
>
>     Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this
>     should still be reviewed as a best practice.
>     -->
>     <Balazs> Yes, I have reviewed "Inclusive Language". No changes are
>     needed.
>
>
>     Thank you.
>
>     RFC Editor/jm
>
>     On 4/3/24 5:13 PM, [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     *****IMPORTANT*****
>
>     Updated 2024/04/03
>
>     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/
>     <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/
>     <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
>     <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] <mailto:[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]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>, which is a new archival
>     mailing list
>            to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion
>            list:
>
>           *  More info:
>
> https://mail/
> archive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fietf-announce%2Fyb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P
> 8O4Zc&data=05%7C02%7Cbalazs.a.varga%40ericsson.com%7C51954e71c4f74c3a2
> 03908dc59833f25%7C92e84cebfbfd47abbe52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638483667
> 450812510%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIi
> LCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=iJ%2B3QsbAnEp7ik8li8
> WWfZfcOTIV8LSDcYxY4svfRzs%3D&reserved=0
> <https://mai/
> larchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fietf-announce%2Fyb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6
> P8O4Zc&data=05%7C02%7Cbalazs.a.varga%40ericsson.com%7C51954e71c4f74c3a
> 203908dc59833f25%7C92e84cebfbfd47abbe52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C63848366
> 7450818367%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzI
> iLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Bz58xJY9Hke7Tz9lM1u
> Y2vPIkA%2FGtGI8O2o1Mjdo68w%3D&reserved=0>
>
>           *  The archive itself:
>     https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
>
> <https://mai/
> larchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fbrowse%2Fauth48archive%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cba
> lazs.a.varga%40ericsson.com%7C51954e71c4f74c3a203908dc59833f25%7C92e84
> cebfbfd47abbe52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638483667450828637%7CUnknown%7CT
> WFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI
> 6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Q8gpQpcgBy58fBMWXLjFhJzsPJ%2FQX06IO0%2FyLHY
> SdXk%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] <mailto:[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/rfc9566.xml
>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.xml>
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.html
>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.html>
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.pdf
>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.pdf>
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.txt
>
> <https://www/
> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9566.txt&data=05%7C02%7Cbalazs.a.varga%
> 40ericsson.com%7C51954e71c4f74c3a203908dc59833f25%7C92e84cebfbfd47abbe
> 52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638483667450871903%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8ey
> JWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7
> C%7C%7C&sdata=w9r%2B5RvreZuu%2BQ7IzCO15FfD1UcFU5Y9sasA2fzzExU%3D&reser
> ved=0>
>
>     Diff file of the text:
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566-diff.html
>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566-diff.html>
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566-rfcdiff.html
>
> <https://www/
> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9566-rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cbalazs
> .a.varga%40ericsson.com%7C51954e71c4f74c3a203908dc59833f25%7C92e84cebf
> bfd47abbe52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638483667450893887%7CUnknown%7CTWFpb
> GZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0
> %3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=9oIXG%2Fan3amXzZEbmq4KK7zhaNXpGaOO6qYdW6OKE8M%3
> D&reserved=0> (side by side)
>
>     Diff of the XML:
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566-xmldiff1.html
>
> <https://www/
> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9566-xmldiff1.html&data=05%7C02%7Cbalaz
> s.a.varga%40ericsson.com%7C51954e71c4f74c3a203908dc59833f25%7C92e84ceb
> fbfd47abbe52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638483667450905041%7CUnknown%7CTWFp
> bGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn
> 0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=S%2B7N10CWqNVTCtjoXiGjCJmDm1LaVT2NmRkbC7LfszA%
> 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://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.original.v2v3.xml
>
> <https://www/
> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9566.original.v2v3.xml&data=05%7C02%7Cb
> alazs.a.varga%40ericsson.com%7C51954e71c4f74c3a203908dc59833f25%7C92e8
> 4cebfbfd47abbe52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638483667450916305%7CUnknown%7C
> TWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVC
> I6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=OcpR1Fdj25jSCl5iVl%2BPo%2BXHJ7%2B6L77Od%2F
> XyPfcRSB4%3D&reserved=0>
>
>     XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
>     only:
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9566.form.xml
>
> <https://www/
> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9566.form.xml&data=05%7C02%7Cbalazs.a.v
> arga%40ericsson.com%7C51954e71c4f74c3a203908dc59833f25%7C92e84cebfbfd4
> 7abbe52080c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638483667450927547%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb
> 3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%
> 7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=OHsjfmcRnp7FdxZtX6H%2B48Akp18GTzeH2WmoFpvIE5Y%3D&re
> served=0>
>
>
>     Tracking progress
>     -----------------
>
>     The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9566
>
> <https://www/
> .rfc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9566&data=05%7C02%7Cbalazs.a.varga%40eri
> csson.com%7C51954e71c4f74c3a203908dc59833f25%7C92e84cebfbfd47abbe52080
> c6b87953f%7C0%7C0%7C638483667450938608%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjo
> iMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%
> 7C&sdata=FbwJlPvhSeMBzdTWv4jBhRkEOEuEY9ooQ3cbnRJIDHA%3D&reserved=0>
>
>     Please let us know if you have any questions.
>
>     Thank you for your cooperation,
>
>     RFC Editor
>
>     --------------------------------------
>     RFC9566 (draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-11)
>
>     Title            : Deterministic Networking (DetNet): DetNet PREOF
>     via MPLS over UDP/IP
>     Author(s)        : B. Varga, J. Farkas, A. Malis
>     WG Chair(s)      : Lou Berger, János Farkas
>
>     Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, John Scudder, Gunter Van de Velde
>
>