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 >> >>
- [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9566 <draft-ietf-detne… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9566 <draft-ietf-d… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9566 <draft-ietf-d… Jean Mahoney
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9566 <draft-ietf-d… Balázs Varga A
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9566 <draft-ietf-d… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9566 <draft-ietf-d… Jean Mahoney
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9566 <draft-ietf-d… Balázs Varga A
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9566 <draft-ietf-d… Jean Mahoney
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9566 <draft-ietf-d… Janos Farkas
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9566 <draft-ietf-d… Jean Mahoney