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

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

Alanna, Karen,

Are we done? Do you need our approvals again for anything. Or Martin's?


Bob

On 12/01/2023 01:31, Bob Briscoe wrote:
> Alanna,
>
> Thank you for the corrections to your edits.
> I have now applied the expansions of abbreviations that Martin wanted 
> from me, which are attached (denoted rfc9330l) (that's a lower-case 
> 'el' at the end).
> I have also attached the diff relative to the latest version you made 
> available (which I have denoted as rfc9330k).
>
> Regards
>
>
> Bob
>
> On 11/01/2023 23:38, Alanna Paloma wrote:
>> Hi Bob,
>>
>> Thank you for your reply. We have updated the files accordingly. 
>> Please note that the bug affecting the RFC reference entries has been 
>> fixed (i.e., “and RFC Publisher” is no longer present in the entries).
>>
>> Per your note, we will await further changes to the abbreviation 
>> expansions before moving forward with publication.
>>
>>> I think Martin is expecting you to give me the edit token to deal 
>>> with the expansions of abbreviations, like he just asked me to do 
>>> for 9331.
>>
>> The updated files are here (please refresh):
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330.html
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330.txt
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330.pdf
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330.xml
>>
>> This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330-diff.html
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>>
>> This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330-auth48diff.html
>>
>> This diff file shows only the changes since the last posted version:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330-lastdiff.html
>>
>> Best regards,
>> RFC Editor/ap
>>
>>> On Jan 10, 2023, at 3:06 PM, Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Alanna,
>>>
>>> #1 [the] flow rate
>>>
>>> I'm afraid as well as reverting the additions of 'the' to 'flow 
>>> rate', two instances of 'the flow rate' that were correct have 
>>> incorrectly had 'the' removed:
>>>
>>> 2. L4S Architecture Overview
>>> CURRENT:
>>>         This maintains the same degree of control over queuing and
>>>         utilization, whatever flow rate,
>>> PROPOSED:
>>>         This maintains the same degree of control over queuing and
>>>         utilization, whatever the flow rate,
>>>
>>> 5.1 Why These Primary Components?
>>> CURRENT:
>>>        the host keeps the signalling frequency from the network high,
>>>        whatever flow rate,
>>>
>>> PROPOSED:
>>>        the host keeps the signalling frequency from the network high,
>>>        whatever
>>> the
>>>   flow rate,
>>>
>>>
>>> #2 Hyphenation of Dual-Queue
>>>
>>> Missed one at the end of  "4.2. Network Components" (I did say '5 
>>> occurrences'):
>>> CURRENT:
>>>        it means a dual queue AQM with per-queue marking
>>> PROPOSED:
>>>        it means a dual-queue AQM with per-queue marking
>>> Note: This is not capitalized deliberately, because it means just 
>>> any AQM with two queues, not the name of the specific Dual-Queue 
>>> Coupled AQM.
>>>
>>> #3 RFCYYY1
>>>
>>> Also, I assume RFCYYY1 can now become RFC9332
>>>
>>> #4 The 'and RFC Publisher' bug
>>>
>>> For completeness, I'll keep pointing this out until the bug is fixed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>
>>> On 09/01/2023 20:37, Alanna Paloma wrote:
>>>> Hi Bob,
>>>>
>>>> Apologies for the delay. We had made the changes internally, and 
>>>> they are now available for your review.
>>>>
>>>> The updated files are here (please refresh):
>>>>
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330.html
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330.txt
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330.pdf
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330.xml
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330-diff.html
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330-rfcdiff.html
>>>>   (side by side)
>>>>
>>>> This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330-auth48diff.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This diff file shows only the changes since the last posted version:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9330-lastdiff.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> RFC Editor/ap
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 7, 2023, at 8:50 AM, Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>
>>>>>   wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Alanna, Karen,
>>>>>
>>>>> In the related thread Subject: "Re: [C350] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9332 
>>>>> <draft-ietf-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled-25> for your review"
>>>>> On 05/01/2023 19:54, Karen Moore wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Notes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Hyphenated “Dual Queue” in RFCs-to-be 9330 and 9331.
>>>>>> 2) Removed “the” before “flow rate” in RFCs-to-be 9330 and 9331.
>>>>>> 3) Updated “[SCReAM]” to  “[SCReAM-L4S]”  to match RFCs-to-be 
>>>>>> 9330 and 9331.
>>>>>>
>>>>> But under the https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/
>>>>>   area, only 9331 seems to have been updated recently, not 9330.
>>>>> I've tried refreshing the page etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think Martin is expecting you to give me the edit token to deal 
>>>>> with the expansions of abbreviations, like he just asked me to do 
>>>>> for 9331.
>>>>> This is to clarify that I will not take the token for 9330 until 
>>>>> you have made the above edits.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 02/12/2022 00:18, Alanna Paloma wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Bob,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apologies for not being clear. Once the terminology from 
>>>>>> RFCs-to-be 9331 and 9332 are finalized, we will update RFC-to-be 
>>>>>> 9330 accordingly. When these 3 documents have completed AUTH48, 
>>>>>> they will move forward in the publication process without waiting 
>>>>>> for the 2 documents currently in MISSREF.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> RFC Editor/ap
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Nov 30, 2022, at 5:02 PM, Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>   wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alanna, (and possibly Alice?)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 29/11/2022 22:32, Alanna Paloma wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bob - We have reverted the change to the list of examples, and 
>>>>>>>> we will hold this document until the cluster terminology has 
>>>>>>>> been finalized.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To clarify, do you believe "the cluster terminology will have 
>>>>>>> been finalized" when
>>>>>>> 1) the terminology sections of l4s-arch (RFC-to-be-9330) and 
>>>>>>> ecn-l4sid (RFC-to-be-9331) have both been finalized and made 
>>>>>>> consistent with each other? Or
>>>>>>> 2) when all 5 drafts in the cluster have been finalized (2 of 
>>>>>>> which are missref's, so this second option would hold back the 
>>>>>>> other 3 for a long time)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it would make sense to publish the three main L4S drafts 
>>>>>>> in the cluster at the same time (RFCs-to-be 9330, 9331, 9332), 
>>>>>>> but I don't see any need to wait for the other two.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> ________________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> Bob Briscoe
>>>>>>> http://bobbriscoe.net/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> ________________________________________________________________
>>>>> Bob Briscoe
>>>>> http://bobbriscoe.net/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> -- 
>>> ________________________________________________________________
>>> Bob Briscoe
>>> http://bobbriscoe.net/
>

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/