Hi Greg, The AUTH48 announcement and questions were sent yesterday. I’ve pasted the questions below.
You can also see the messages in the AUTH48 mail archive: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/?q=9791. Thank you for checking in! Best regards, RFC Editor/rv 1) <!-- [rfced] *AD: We see that consensus is set to "Unknown" for this document in the datatracker. See <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-usecases/>. This document was sent to Last Call, so we have used the consensus Status of This Memo. Please confirm that this is correct. --> 2) <!-- [rfced] The document title includes two instances of "MPLS". Are both needed? Original: Use Cases for MPLS Network Action Indicators and MPLS Ancillary Data Perhaps: Use Cases for MPLS Network Action Indicators and Ancillary Data --> 3) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> 4) <!-- [rfced] We see that "MPLS Ancillary Data" appears in Section 1.1 ("Terminology"). We see instances of "ancillary data" (no "MPLS") in the document, but we only see "MPLS Ancillary Data" used in the document title. Are any updates needed? Also, note that we slightly updated the definition list as follows. Original: RFC 9543 Network Slice is interpreted as defined in [RFC9543]. Furthermore, this document uses "network slice" interchangeably as a shorter version of the RFC 9543 Network Slice term. The MPLS Ancillary Data is classified as: * residing within the MPLS label stack and referred to as In- Stack Data, and * residing after the Bottom of Stack (BoS) and referred to as Post-Stack Data. Updated: RFC 9543 Network Slice: Interpreted as defined in [RFC9543]. This document uses "network slice" interchangeably as a shorter version of the term "RFC 9543 Network Slice". MPLS Ancillary Data: Data that can be classified as: * residing within the MPLS label stack (referred to as "in-stack data"), and * residing after the Bottom of Stack (BoS) (referred to as "post- stack data"). --> 5) <!-- [rfced] Would you like for the abbreviations listed in Section 1.2 ("Abbreviations") to be alphabetized? Or do you prefer the current order? --> 6) <!-- [rfced] Please review "Policy as a policy construct". May we update as follows (i.e., remove "policy")? Original: Section 5 of [I-D.ietf-teas-ns-ip-mpls] defines a Network Resource Partition (NRP) Policy as a policy construct that enables the instantiation of mechanisms to support one or more network slice services. Perhaps: Section 5 of [NS-IP-MPLS] defines a Network Resource Partition (NRP) Policy as a construct that enables the instantiation of mechanisms to support one or more network slice services. --> 7) <!-- [rfced] We believe that "label stack elements" here should be updated to "label stack entries", which is used earlier in this document and in RFC 8595. Please confirm. Also note that "label stack element" has not been used in the RFC Series. Original: [RFC8595] describes how Service Function Chaining can be realized in an MPLS network by emulating the Network Service Header (NSH) [RFC8300] using only MPLS label stack elements. --> 8) <!-- [rfced] Please confirm that "FUNC::ARG" is correct here. We ask because we see "LOC:FUNCT:ARG" in RFC 8986. Original: MNA can be used to encode the FUNC::ARGs to support the functional equivalent of FUNC::ARG in SRv6 as described in [RFC8986]. --> 9) <!-- [rfced] Would you like to update "bottom of the label stack" here to "BoS" or leave as is? Original: In this case, BIER has defined 0b0101 as the value for the first nibble in the data that immediately appears after the bottom of the label stack for any BIER-encapsulated packet over MPLS. Perhaps: In this case, BIER has defined 0b0101 as the value for the first nibble in the data that immediately appears after the BoS for any BIER-encapsulated packet over MPLS. --> 10) <!-- [rfced] Please confirm that the citation is correct here. We ask because we do not see the specific wording "non-protocol specifying document" in RFC-to-be 9789 (ietf-mpls-mna-fwk). Also, to improve readability, we upddated "non-protocol specifying documents" as follows. Let us know any concerns. Original: Section 7 of "MPLS Network Action (MNA) Framework", [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk] outlines security considerations for non- protocol specifying documents. Updated: Section 7 of the MNA framework [RFC9789] outlines security considerations for documents that do not specify protocols. --> 11) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We lowercased "post-stack data" and "in-stack data" per usage in RFC-to-be 9789 (ietf-mpls-mna-fwk). --> 12) <!-- [rfced] Abbreviations a) This document uses "Ingress to Edge" as the expansion for I2E, but RFC-to-be 9789 (ietf-mpls-mna-fwk) and other documents in the RFC Series use "Ingress to Egress". If no objections, we will update this document accordingly. Current: Ingress to Edge Perhaps: Ingress to Egress b) FYI - We have added expansions for the following abbreviations per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) Segment Routing over MPLS (SR-MPLS) Service Level Objectives (SLOs) --> 13) <!-- [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. Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should still be reviewed as a best practice. --> Thank you. RFC Editor/rv On May 13, 2025, at 9:31 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/05/13 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/rfc9791.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9791.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9791.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9791.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9791-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9791-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Alt-diff of the text (allows you to more easily view changes where text has been deleted or moved): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9791-alt-diff.html Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9791-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9791 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC9791 (draft-ietf-mpls-mna-usecases-15) Title : Use Cases for MPLS Network Action Indicators and MPLS Ancillary Data Author(s) : T. Saad, K. Makhijani, H. Song, G. Mirsky WG Chair(s) : Tarek Saad, Tony Li, Adrian Farrel Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter Van de Velde > On May 14, 2025, at 9:25 AM, Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear RFC Editor, > for some reason I didn't receive the note from the RFC Editor. If there are > any questions to the authors, please let me know and I will work on > addressing them. > > Regards, > Greg > > On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 4:03 AM James Guichard > <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com> wrote: > > > 1) <!-- [rfced] *AD: We see that consensus is set to "Unknown" > for this document in the datatracker. See > <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-mpls-mna-usecases%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C7b9c8f9adca54238640508dd92a0d426%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638827941655234908%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=1%2FHihWNAtbyi%2FuoeToIOkzsvg0ee0ekc4sImPiWZowQ%3D&reserved=0>. > > This document was sent to Last Call, so we have used the > consensus Status of This Memo. Please confirm that this is correct. > --> > > Jim> Confirmed. -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
