Dear Tony, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> 2) <!--[rfced] Since "LSP" stands for "Link State Protocol Data Unit" per this document, we removed "IS-IS" from its expansion in the terms list (Section 1.2) and included it in the next sentence as shown below. Please let us know if this is incorrect. Original: LSP: IS-IS Link State Protocol Data Unit. An LSP is a set of packets that describe a node's connectivity to other nodes. Current: LSP: Link State Protocol Data Unit. An IS-IS LSP is a set of packets that describe a node's connectivity to other nodes. --> 3) <!--[rfced] To avoid the redundancy of "Orbit orbits" in this sentence (i.e., when "LEO" and "GEO" are expanded, it becomes "between Low Earth Orbit and Geostationary Earth Orbit orbits"), may we remove "orbits" as shown below? Original: MEO: Medium Earth Orbit. A satellite in MEO is between LEO and GEO orbits and has an altitude between 2,000km and 35,786km. Perhaps: MEO: Medium Earth Orbit. A satellite in MEO is between LEO and GEO and has an altitude between 2,000 km and 35,786 km. --> 4) <!--[rfced] In the first sentence of Section 2.1, should "parent planet" perhaps be "parent planets", or is this referring to one planet? Original: Satellites travel in specific orbits around their parent planet. Some of them have their orbital periods synchronized to planetary rotation, so they are effectively stationary over a single point. Perhaps: Satellites travel in specific orbits around their parent planets. Some of them have their orbital periods synchronized to planetary rotation, so they are effectively stationary over a single point. --> 5) <!--[rfced] We updated three instances of "not discussed further" to "not discussed further in this document". If that is not correct, please let us know. One example (see the text for more instances) Original: The architecture of the terrestrial network is assumed to be a typical IS-IS and BGP deployment [RFC4271] and is not discussed further. Current: The architecture of the terrestrial network is assumed to be a typical IS-IS and BGP deployment [RFC4271] and is not discussed further in this document. --> 6) <!--[rfced] We updated the last part of this sentence from "and the structure can scale" to "so that the structure can scale" for clarity. Please let us know if this is incorrect. Original: The goal of the routing architecture is to provide an organizational structure to protocols running on the satellite network such that topology information is conveyed through relevant portions of the network, that paths are computed across the network, and that data can be delivered along those paths, and the structure can scale without any changes to the organizational structure. Current: The goal of the routing architecture is to provide an organizational structure to protocols running on the satellite network such that topology information is conveyed through relevant portions of the network, paths are computed across the network, and data can be delivered along those paths so that the structure can scale without any changes to the organizational structure. --> 7) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We added the expansion for "TI-FLA". Please let us know of any objections. Original: These can be avoided by using TI-LFA alternate paths [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa], or traffic will loop until discarded based on its TTL. Current: These can be avoided by using Topology Independent Loop-Free Alternate (TI-LFA) paths [SR-TI-LFA]; otherwise, traffic will loop until discarded based on its TTL. --> 8) <!--[rfced] Please clarify "into the global Internet" in this sentence. Do gateways advertise prefixes to cover all of their local user stations perhaps "across the global Internet" or "including those in global Internet"? Original: Gateways and their supporting terrestrial networks advertise prefixes covering all its local user stations into the global Internet. Perhaps: Gateways and their supporting terrestrial networks advertise prefixes to cover all its local user stations across the global Internet. --> 9) <!-- [rfced] Please clarify what "this" in "this architecture" refers to. Is it the "forwarding plane" or "on-stripe" architecture? Original: 6. Traffic Forwarding and Traffic Engineering Forwarding in this architecture is straightforward. Perhaps: 6. Traffic Forwarding and Traffic Engineering Forwarding in the forwarding plane architecture is straightforward. --> 10) <!-- [rfced] FYI: For [ISO10589], we have made the following updates: a) The original URL navigates to a page where the .zip file is downloaded, so we have replaced this URL with the main page for ISO/IEC 10589:2002, which includes a link to download the file. b) We also changed the title of this reference to reflect the title of the document. Please let us know if there are any objections. Original: [ISO10589] International Organization for Standardization, "Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-Domain Routing Exchange Protocol for use in Conjunction with the Protocol for Providing the Connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473)", ISO/IEC 10589:2002 , November 2002, <https://standards.iso.org/ittf/ PubliclyAvailableStandards/ c030932_ISO_IEC_10589_2002(E).zip>. Current: [ISO10589] ISO/IEC, "Information technology - Telecommunications and information exchange between systems - Intermediate System to Intermediate System intra-domain routeing information exchange protocol for use in conjunction with the protocol for providing the connectionless-mode network service (ISO 8473)", ISO/IEC 10589:2002, November 2002, <https://www.iso.org/standard/30932.html>. --> 11) <!-- [rfced] FYI: For [Bell], we have updated the URL to match the URL from the DOI provided. Note that this new URL is the official page of the American Journal of Science and still provides an open access PDF. Original: [Bell] Bell, A. G., "On the Production and Reproduction of Sound by Light", American Journal of Science Third Series. XX (118): 305-324., DOI 10.2475/ajs.s3-20.118.305, October 1880, <https://zenodo.org/records/1450056>. Current: [Bell] Bell, A. G., "On the Production and Reproduction of Sound by Light", American Journal of Science, vol. S3-20, no. 118, pp. 305-324, DOI 10.2475/ajs.s3-20.118.305, October 1880, <https://ajsonline.org/article/64037>. --> 12) <!-- [rfced] FYI: For [Cao], we have updated the URL to match the URL from the DOI provided. Note that this change was made because the original URL was a direct download of the PDF file. Also, please note that the full text of the document is still available at this URL as well as the link to download the PDF file. Original: [Cao] Cao, X., Li, Y., Xiong, X., and J. Wang, "Dynamic Routings in Satellite Networks: An Overview", Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 22(12), DOI 10.3390/s22124552, 2022, <https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/22/12/4552/ pdf?version=1655449925>. Current: [Cao] Cao, X., Li, Y., Xiong, X., and J. Wang, "Dynamic Routings in Satellite Networks: An Overview", Sensors, vol. 22, no. 12, p. 4552, DOI 10.3390/s22124552, 2022, <https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/22/12/4552/ pdf?version=1655449925>. --> 13) <!-- [rfced] For [ITU], we found the most current version of this reference at the URL below. May we update this reference to use the most current version? Note that this would include updating the date from 2016 to 2024. Current: [ITU] ITU, "Radio Regulations - Articles", 2016, <https://search.itu.int/history/ HistoryDigitalCollectionDocLibrary/1.43.48.en.101.pdf>. Perhaps: [ITU] ITU, "Radio Regulations - Articles", 2024, <https://search.itu.int/history/ HistoryDigitalCollectionDocLibrary/ 1.49.48.en.101.pdf#search=radio%20regulation>. --> 14) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. For example, please consider whether "traditional" should be updated for clarity. While the NIST website <https://www.nist.gov/nist-research-library/nist-technical-series-publications- author-instructions#table1> indicates that this term is potentially biased, it is also ambiguous. "Tradition" is a subjective term, as it is not the same for everyone. --> Thank you. RFC Editor/st/kc On Jan 16, 2025, at 6:41 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/01/16 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/). 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). * 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>. * 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-edi...@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, which is a new archival mailing list to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion list: * More info: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc * The archive itself: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ * 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 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/rfc9717.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9717.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9717.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9717.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9717-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9717-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9717-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9717 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC9717 (draft-li-arch-sat-09) Title : A Routing Architecture for Satellite Networks Author(s) : T. Li WG Chair(s) : Area Director(s) : *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/01/16 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/). 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). * 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>. * 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-edi...@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, which is a new archival mailing list to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion list: * More info: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc * The archive itself: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ * 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 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/rfc9717.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9717.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9717.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9717.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9717-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9717-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9717-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9717 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC9717 (draft-li-arch-sat-09) Title : A Routing Architecture for Satellite Networks Author(s) : T. Li WG Chair(s) : Area Director(s) : -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
