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

Jean Mahoney <jmahoney@amsl.com> Fri, 12 April 2024 16:44 UTC

Return-Path: <jmahoney@amsl.com>
X-Original-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15447C14F6B8; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 09:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YtBW-wXNdGgb; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 09:44:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c8a.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CD23C14F691; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 09:44:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DB5E424B455; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 09:44:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E764Lqp4RDTY; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 09:44:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.203] (unknown [47.186.48.51]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D6871424B427; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 09:44:22 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <8184bbeb-08fe-4a38-904f-24b1a7fdde14@amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 11:44:21 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Balázs Varga A <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com>, "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Cc: "rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, Janos Farkas <Janos.Farkas@ericsson.com>, "detnet-ads@ietf.org" <detnet-ads@ietf.org>, "detnet-chairs@ietf.org" <detnet-chairs@ietf.org>, "lberger@labn.net" <lberger@labn.net>, "debcooley1@gmail.com" <debcooley1@gmail.com>, "auth48archive@rfc-editor.org" <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
References: <20240403221823.C05B676334@rfcpa.amsl.com> <PA4PR07MB7214D7813660856AB4E1F580AC062@PA4PR07MB7214.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAA=duU19LVBkWYSkQfYsLp7ex9c0AcBoKYVN9EUsH8efnbx8wQ@mail.gmail.com> <eed70568-2306-4dcc-816a-c1b57e925dd0@amsl.com> <PA4PR07MB721461DFE83E915FD652A6E0AC052@PA4PR07MB7214.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Jean Mahoney <jmahoney@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <PA4PR07MB721461DFE83E915FD652A6E0AC052@PA4PR07MB7214.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/jNOm13hs3EZjnmztcUljhOBf3yc>
Subject: Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9566 <draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-11> for your review
X-BeenThere: auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Archiving AUTH48 exchanges between the RFC Production Center, the authors, and other related parties" <auth48archive.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/>
List-Post: <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 16:44:28 -0000

Bala'zs,

We will keep the wording as is.

Best regards,
RFC Editor/jm

On 4/11/24 8:20 AM, Balázs Varga A wrote:
> 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 <jmahoney@amsl.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 7:26 PM
> To: Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com>; Balázs Varga A <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com>
> Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org; Janos Farkas <Janos.Farkas@ericsson.com>; detnet-ads@ietf.org; detnet-chairs@ietf.org; lberger@labn.net; debcooley1@gmail.com; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9566 <draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-11> for your review
> 
> [Ritkán kap e-maileket jmahoney@amsl.com. 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
>> <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com <mailto:balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com>> 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: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
>>      <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>>
>>      Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2024 12:18 AM
>>      To: Balázs Varga A <balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com
>>      <mailto:balazs.a.varga@ericsson.com>>; Janos Farkas
>>      <Janos.Farkas@ericsson.com <mailto:Janos.Farkas@ericsson.com>>;
>>      agmalis@gmail.com <mailto:agmalis@gmail.com>
>>      Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>;
>>      detnet-ads@ietf.org <mailto:detnet-ads@ietf.org>;
>>      detnet-chairs@ietf.org <mailto:detnet-chairs@ietf.org>;
>>      lberger@labn.net <mailto:lberger@labn.net>; debcooley1@gmail.com
>>      <mailto:debcooley1@gmail.com>; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
>>      <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
>>      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, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
>>      <mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> 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
>>
>>          * rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
>>      (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).
>>
>>          * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
>>      <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>, 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,
>>      auth48archive@rfc-editor.org <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
>>      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
>>
>>