Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9541 <draft-ietf-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacflush-09> for your review

[三宅 正浩（モバイル＆ネットワーク本部 ）- Miyake Masahiro - <[e-mail]>]

 Alice-San,

Sorry for the delay.

I have reviewed the new document. It is very good. I approve it too.

Thank you very much.

＝＝
M.Miyake

2024年2月9日(金) 13:16 Taku Matsuda <[e-mail]>:

> Alice-san,
>
> I think the document is good, and approve it to be published.
>
> Thank you.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Taku Matsuda
>
>
> 2024年2月7日(水) 5:48 Alice Russo <[e-mail]>:
>
>> Jorge,
>> Thank you for your reply. We have recorded your approval (and Senthil's
>> approval) on the AUTH48 status page:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9541
>>
>> We await replies from K. Nagaraj, M. Miyake, and T. Matsuda. Please
>> review the edited document (https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9541.html
>> or other formats as listed below) and let us know whether you have any
>> further changes or you approve it for publication.
>>
>> Thank you.
>> RFC Editor/ar
>>
>> On Feb 6, 2024, at 12:35 PM, Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <
>> jorge.rabadan=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Alice,
>>
>> Yes, the figure looks good, thanks.
>>
>> It is approved from my side.
>>
>> Thank you!
>> Jorge
>>
>>
>> *From: *Alice Russo <[e-mail]>
>> *Date: *Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 11:50 AM
>> *To: *Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <[e-mail]>
>> *Cc: *Kiran Nagaraj (Nokia) <[e-mail]>, Senthil Sathappan
>> (Nokia) <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <
>> [e-mail]>, Matthew Bocci (Nokia) <[e-mail]>,
>> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
>> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
>> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
>> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
>> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
>> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>> *Subject: *Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9541
>> <draft-ietf-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacflush-09> for your review
>> You don't often get email from [e-mail]. Learn why this is
>> important <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>
>>
>> *CAUTION:* This is an external email. Please be very careful when
>> clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for
>> additional information.
>>
>>
>> Jorge,
>>
>> Thank you for your reply. We have updated Figure 1 accordingly; please
>> review that it is accurate -- in particular, please check that the arrows
>> on the first line are aligned with the diagram as you intended. (We
>> recommend looking at Figure 1 in
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9541-rfcdiff.html)
>>
>> The revised files are here (please refresh):
>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9541.html
>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9541.txt
>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9541.pdf
>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9541.xml
>>
>> This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D:
>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9541-diff.html
>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9541-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>>
>> This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far:
>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9541-auth48diff.html
>>
>> This diff file shows only the changes since the last posted version:
>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9541-lastrfcdiff.html
>>
>> Re:
>>
>> *[jorge] once you make that minor change, you can note my approval.*
>>
>>
>> Will do after you confirm that Figure 1 appears as you intended.
>> This page shows the AUTH48 status of your document:
>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9541
>>
>> Thank you.
>> RFC Editor/ar
>>
>>
>> On Feb 2, 2024, at 5:19 AM, Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <
>> jorge.rabadan=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Alice,
>>
>> Thanks very much for your work on this.
>> Please see my comments in-line with [jorge].
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Alice Russo <[e-mail]>
>> *Date: *Thursday, February 1, 2024 at 7:53 PM
>> *To: *Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <[e-mail]>
>> *Cc: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Senthil
>> Sathappan (Nokia) <[e-mail]>, Rebecca VanRheenen <
>> [e-mail]>, Kiran Nagaraj (Nokia) <[e-mail]>,
>> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
>> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
>> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <
>> [e-mail]>, Matthew Bocci (Nokia) <[e-mail]>,
>> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
>> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>> *Subject: *Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9541
>> <draft-ietf-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacflush-09> for your review
>> You don't often get email from [e-mail]. Learn why this is
>> important <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>
>>
>> *CAUTION:* This is an external email. Please be very careful when
>> clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for
>> additional information.
>>
>> Jorge,
>>
>> Thank you for your reply. Please see notes and an additional question
>> below.
>> The revised files are here (please refresh):
>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9541.html
>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9541.txt
>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9541.pdf
>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9541.xml
>>
>> This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D:
>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9541-diff.html
>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9541-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>>
>> This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far:
>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9541-auth48diff.html
>>
>> Re: #1, we have updated the document's title as requested.
>> The abbreviated title (which appears in the PDF as the running header)
>> has not been updated because it matches the text in Section 1 ('The C-MAC
>> flush procedure explained in this document is referred to as "PBB-EVPN
>> I-SID-based C-MAC flush"'). Please let us know if you prefer that it be
>> updated as shown below, or otherwise..
>>
>> Full title:
>>
>> Option A:
>>    Flush Mechanism for Customer MAC Addresses
>>    Based on Service Instance Identifier (I-SID)
>>    in Provider Backbone Bridging EVPN (PBB-EVPN)
>>
>>
>> Abbreviated title:
>> Current:    PBB-EVPN I-SID-Based C-MAC-Flush
>> Perhaps:   C-MAC-Flush Based on I-SID in PBB-EVPN
>> *[jorge] the current abbreviated title for the PDF header looks good for
>> me. As you say it matches the name in section 1, and it is clear enough.*
>>
>> Re: #4, updated the sentences with your new text; thank you for providing
>> text that is more clear.
>> *[jorge] looks good, thanks.*
>>
>> Re: #7b, updated to use abbreviations; please review that the text is
>> still clear.
>> *[jorge] looks good, thanks.*
>>
>> *Please reply to one additional question:*
>> 10) In Figure 1, do you think "stb" will be clear to readers? (We do not
>> see that abbreviation used in past RFCs.) If not, would you like to do
>> either of these?
>> a) Adjust the figure to change "stb" to "standby", as it appears
>> elsewhere in this figure.
>> b) Add a note below the figure, e.g., "stb" means "standby" in Figure 1.
>> *[jorge] you are right, it might not be clear for all readers. If it does
>> not bother any other object in the Figure, can you please expand it to
>> “standby”?*
>>
>> We will wait to hear from you again and from your coauthors
>> before continuing the publication process. This page shows
>> the AUTH48 status of your document:
>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9541
>> *[jorge] once you make that minor change, you can note my approval.*
>> *Thanks again!*
>> *Jorge*
>>
>>

-- 



〓ソフトバンク株式会社〓
モバイル＆ネットワーク本部 屋内ネットワーク統括部
屋内ネットワーク技術部 屋内設備課
Technical Meister                三宅 正浩

phone)080-3241-7066
E-mail: [e-mail]
<http://tm.softbank.jp/>