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

[Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>]

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: "Dr. Yang Shenghao (SSE)" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9426 <draft-irtf-nwcrg-bats-07> for your review
> Date: July 1, 2023 at 7:13:52 PM PDT
> To: Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Vincent Roca <[e-mail]>, auth48archive <[e-mail]>, RFC Errata System <[e-mail]>
> 
> Dear Alanna, 
> 
> The authors Shenghao Yang, Raymond W. Yeung and Xuan Huang approve the file. 
> 
> Our author John Zao decided to remove FiduciaEdge Technologies from his affiliation. So the change in the XML file is as follows: 
> 
> Line # 59
> 
> OLD:
> <organization>CUHK &amp; FiduciaEdge Technologies</organization>
> 
> NEW:
> <organization>CUHK</organization>
> 
> 
> 
> Best, 
> 
> Shenghao
> 
> 
>> On Jun 29, 2023, at 02:47, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Shenghao, Xuan, Raymond, and John,
>> 
>> This is a friendly reminder that we await your any further updates you may have as well as your approvals. Once we have received all necessary approvals, we will move this document forward in the publication process. 
>> 
>> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9426.xml
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9426.txt
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9426.html
>> https://ddei3-0-ctp.asiainfo-sec.com:443/wis/clicktime/v1/query?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.rfc%2deditor.org%2fauthors%2frfc9426.pdf&umid=1317132E-FF35-0605-A263-FDABC9C78EA2&auth=dc85afdffa75f9bc5357f32e37bf917c5d89a957-08db0db9b7701836b11086a968819b38d69a96a5
>> 
>> The relevant diff files have been posted here:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9426-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9426-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes)
>> 
>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9426
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> RFC Editor/ap
>> 
>>> On Jun 20, 2023, at 9:15 AM, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Shenghao,
>>> 
>>> Thank you for the confirmation. 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 author prior to moving this document forward in the publication process.
>>> 
>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9426.xml
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9426.txt
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9426.html
>>> https://ddei3-0-ctp.asiainfo-sec.com:443/wis/clicktime/v1/query?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.rfc%2deditor.org%2fauthors%2frfc9426.pdf&umid=1317132E-FF35-0605-A263-FDABC9C78EA2&auth=dc85afdffa75f9bc5357f32e37bf917c5d89a957-08db0db9b7701836b11086a968819b38d69a96a5
>>> 
>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here:
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9426-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9426-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes)
>>> 
>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9426
>>> 
>>> Thank you,
>>> RFC Editor/ap
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Jun 19, 2023, at 5:49 PM, Dr. Yang Shenghao (SSE) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> We have checked the queries. No further updates.
>>>> 
>>>> Shenghao
>>>> 
>>>>> On 20 Jun 2023, at 08:27, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Shenghao,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you for the updated XML file. We have updated the other files accordingly.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We note that the following queries were not addressed. Please review and let us know if further updates are necessary.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1) <!--[rfced] Please ensure that the guidelines listed in Section 2.1 of RFC
>>>>>> 5743
>>>>>> have been adhered to in this document.  -->
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> -->
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> -->
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>> -->
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9426.xml
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9426.txt
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9426.html
>>>>> https://ddei3-0-ctp.asiainfo-sec.com:443/wis/clicktime/v1/query?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.rfc%2deditor.org%2fauthors%2frfc9426.pdf&umid=1317132E-FF35-0605-A263-FDABC9C78EA2&auth=dc85afdffa75f9bc5357f32e37bf917c5d89a957-08db0db9b7701836b11086a968819b38d69a96a5
>>>>> 
>>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here:
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9426-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9426-auth48diff.html (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/auth48/rfc9426
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> RFC Editor/ap
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jun 19, 2023, at 4:45 PM, Dr. Yang Shenghao (SSE) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear all, 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Attached is the response, which has been discussed with the other authors as well.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Shenghao
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 20 Jun 2023, at 05:44, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This is a friendly reminder that we await answers to the questions sent on 6/5/2023 and your review of the document before continuing with the publication process. Please let us know if we can be of assistance as you begin the AUTH48 review process.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here:
>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9426
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>> RFC Editor/ap
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2023, at 10:11 AM, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 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://ddei3-0-ctp.asiainfo-sec.com:443/wis/clicktime/v1/query?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.rfc%2deditor.org%2fauthors%2frfc9426.pdf&umid=1317132E-FF35-0605-A263-FDABC9C78EA2&auth=dc85afdffa75f9bc5357f32e37bf917c5d89a957-08db0db9b7701836b11086a968819b38d69a96a5
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> <rfc9426-reply.xml>
> 
>