Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9473 <draft-irtf-panrg-path-properties-08> for your review

[Krähenbühl Cyrill <[e-mail]>]

Dear RFC Editor(s),


With this, I approve of the document in its current form.


Also big thanks from my side to the RFC editor team for the quick replies and the many editorial improvements to this document!


Best,
 Cyrill


________________________________
Von: Sarah Tarrant <[e-mail]>
Gesendet: Freitag, 8. September 2023 22:31
An: Reese Enghardt
Cc: Krähenbühl Cyrill; [e-mail]; RFC Editor; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Betreff: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9473 <draft-irtf-panrg-path-properties-08> for your review

Hi Reese,

Thank you for your reply. We have marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9473).

We will assume your assent to any further changes submitted by your coauthor unless we hear objection at that time. We will await approval from Cyrill prior to moving this document forward in the publication process.

Thank you,
RFC Editor/st

> On Sep 8, 2023, at 3:00 PM, Reese Enghardt <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi Sarah,
>
> Thank you for the reply and change.
>
> With this, I approve of the document in its current form.
>
> Huge thanks to you and the entire RFC Editor team for your excellent support, I highly appreciate it!
>
> Best,
> Reese
>
>
> On September 8, 2023 11:51:10 AM PDT, Sarah Tarrant <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Reese,
>
> Thank you for your comments.
>
> About “path-selection” (with hyphen) and “path selection” (no hyphen), we used the hyphenated form in attributive position (before a noun) and used the open form for the noun. You can see this pattern used in RFC 9217.
>
> About capitalizing “Service function” in Section 4, we agree. We have made the change. Thank you for catching that.
>
> Please let us know if you have further questions or comments.
>
> Updated XML file:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9473.xml
>
> Updated output files:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9473.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9473.txt
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9473.pdf
>
> Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9473-auth48diff.html
>
> Diff files showing all changes:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9473-diff.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9473-rfcdiff.html (side-by-side diff)
>
> Thank you,
>
> RFC Editor/st
>
> On Sep 8, 2023, at 11:41 AM, Reese Enghardt <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Dear RFC Editor, Cyrill, Med,
>
> Thank you for the great edits and replies.
>
>
> On 9/7/23 14:06, Sarah Tarrant wrote:
> Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form.
>
> Updated XML file:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9473.xml
>
> Updated output files:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9473.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9473.txt
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9473.pdf
>
> Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9473-auth48diff.html
>
> Diff files showing all changes:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9473-diff.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9473-rfcdiff.html (side-by-side diff)
>
>
> I have looked over the updated files and I found just two small points that seem inconsistent to me:
>
> 1. Section 3.1: "As an example path-selection strategy, an entity may select a path with a short one-way delay for sending a small delay-sensitive query, while it may select a path with high link capacities on all links for retrieving a large file."
> "As a baseline, a path-selection algorithm should aim to do a better job of meeting the target properties, and consequently accommodating the user's requirements, than the default case of not selecting a path most of the time."
>
> The rest of the document uses "path selection" without a hyphen - Should it be without a hyphen here as well?
>
> 2. Section 4: "Service function: A service function that a path element applies to a flow, see [RFC7665]"
>
> Should the first occurrence of "function" be capitalized here, as all the other property names are capitalized (e.g., Access Technology, Monetary Cost)?
>
>
> Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you!
>
>
> Best,
> Reese
>
>
>
>