Hi Rebecca I have reviewed the text and this, which is probably my last RFC, is ready for publication.
I agree with Loa’s proposed acknowledgement of Adrian’s contribution which I am sure you can suitably phrase. Best regards Stewart > On 19 Jun 2025, at 21:50, Rebecca VanRheenen > <rvanrhee...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > Hi Adrian, authors, and Jim*, > > Adrian - Thank you for providing the updated text. We have updated the files > accordingly (see list of files below) > > Authors - Please let us know if you approve of the document in its current > form or if any further updates are needed. > > *Jim - As AD, please review the changes to the definitions for "MPLS Payload” > and "Post-Stack Header (PSH)” in Section 1.2 and let us know if you approve. > These changes are best viewed in this diff file: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790-lastdiff.html. > > — FILES (please refresh) — > > Updated XML file: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790.xml > > Updated output files: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790.html > > Diff file showing changes made during AUTH48: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790-lastdiff.html (htmlwdiff diff > between last version and this) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff between > last version and this) > > Diff files showing all changes: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790-alt-diff.html (diff showing > changes where text is moved or deleted) > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9790 > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/rv > > >> On Jun 18, 2025, at 1:20 PM, Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk> wrote: >> >> RFC Editor (Rebecca), authors, Working Group, >> >> Document Shepherd here. >> >> This document seemed to stagnate over the discussion of a couple of minor >> editorial points. So I have been chatting with Greg and Loa, and we have >> agreed some changes that seem to address the concerns. >> >> I have based these changes on the text at >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9790.txt >> >> Section 1.2 >> OLD >> MPLS Payload: All data after the label stack and the optional Post- >> Stack header. >> NEW >> MPLS Payload: All data after the label stack and any optional PSHs. It >> is possible that more than one type of PSH may be present in a >> packet, and some PSH specifications might allow multiple PSHs of >> the same type. The presence rules for multiple PSHs are a matter >> for the documents that define those PSHs, e.g., in >> [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-ps-hdr]. >> END >> >> Section 1.2 >> OLD >> Post-Stack Header (PSH): A field containing information that may be >> of interest to the egress Label Switching Router (LSR) or transit >> LSRs. Examples include a control word [RFC4385] [RFC8964] or an >> associated channel header [RFC4385] [RFC5586] [RFC9546]. A parser >> needs to be able to determine where the PSH ends in order to find >> the embedded packet. >> NEW >> Post-Stack Header (PSH): A field containing information that may be >> of interest to the egress Label Switching Router (LSR) or transit >> LSRs. Examples include a control word [RFC4385] [RFC8964] or an >> associated channel header [RFC4385] [RFC5586] [RFC9546]. >> END >> >> >> I hope with these two changes, all of the authors can confirm their AUTH48 >> proposal. >> >> Regards, >> Adrian >> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
