Authors,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the
following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!--[rfced] We note that the abbreviated title for this document is
currently "PLE". We have updated this to "PLE over PSNs" to more
closely match the full title. Please let us know any objections.
-->
2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
3) <!--[rfced] We had a few notes about the titles in Section 3:
a) Please note that we have updated the title of Section 3 to use
plural "Models" as it appears that more than one model is discussed in
Section 3.2 (or at least repeated from RFC 4197). Please review and
let us know any objections.
b) Please note that we have updated the title of Section 3.1 to
"Abbreviations" as all terms in that section seem to be expansions.
Please let us know any concerns.
-->
4) <!-- [rfced] We note that [RFC3985] does not contain the term "Virtual
Private Wire Service" or the abbreviation "VPWS". Please review
this citation for accuracy.
Original:
VPWS - Virtual Private Wire Service [RFC3985]
-->
5) <!--[rfced] Can you clarify the use of "whereas" in this text?
Original:
PLE embraces the minimum intervention principle outlined in
Section 3.3.5 of [RFC3985] whereas the data is flowing through the
PLE encapsulation layer as received without modifications.
Perhaps:
While PLE embraces the minimum intervention principle outlined in
Section 3.3.5 of [RFC3985], in this case, the data is flowing through the
PLE encapsulation layer as received without modifications.
-->
6) <!--[rfced] In the following, does PE1 generate the clock difference
transferred? Or should the last part of this sentence be passive
voice (i.e., "is transferred" instead of "transferred")?
Original:
For the reverse direction PE1 does generate the attachment circuit
clock J and the clock difference between G and D (locked to I)
transferred from PE2 to PE1.
-->
7) <!--[rfced] Is there an "and" relationship between the items in the
lists like those found in Section 4.2.2 (and elsewhere)?
Original:
The CE-bound NSP function MUST perform
* PCS code sync (section 49.2.9 of [IEEE802.3])
* descrambling (section 49.2.10 of [IEEE802.3])
in order to properly
* transform invalid 66B code blocks into proper error control
characters /E/ (section 49.2.4.11 of [IEEE802.3])
* insert Local Fault (LF) ordered sets (section 46.3.4 of
[IEEE802.3]) when the CE-bound IWF is in PLOS state or when PLE
packets are received with the L-bit being set
Perhaps:
The CE-bound NSP function MUST perform:
* PCS code sync (Section 49.2.9 of [IEEE802.3]) and
* descrambling (Section 49.2.10 of [IEEE802.3])
in order to properly:
* transform invalid 66B code blocks into proper error control
characters /E/ (section 49.2.4.11 of [IEEE802.3]) and
* insert Local Fault (LF) ordered sets (Section 46.3.4 of
[IEEE802.3]) when the CE-bound IWF is in PLOS state or when PLE
packets are received with the L bit set.
-->
8) <!--[rfced] We note that RFC-to-be 9800
(draft-ietf-spring-srv6-srh-compression-27) uses Destination
Address field. Please review the following and let us know if
updates are necessary:
Original:
The first SID is only placed in the destination IPv6 address field.
-->
9) <!--[rfced] Please clarify "to detect malformed packets the default":
does this mean "to detect malformed packets by default" or is
another rephrasing necessary?
Original:
To detect malformed packets the default, preconfigured or signaled
payload size MUST be assumed.
-->
10) <!--[rfced] Please review this use of "both":
Original:
The same PT value MAY be reused both for direction and between
different PLE VPWS.
Perhaps A:
The same PT value MAY be reused for both directions and between
different PLE VPWS.
Perhaps B:
The same PT value MAY be reused both for directionality and
between different PLE VPWS.
-->
11) <!--[rfced] Please confirm that the following uses of PLE should not
be flipped in their expansions:
Original:
* ES-PLE : PLE Errored Seconds
* SES-PLE : PLE Severely Errored Seconds
* UAS-PLE : PLE Unavailable Seconds
Perhaps:
* ES-PLE : Errored Seconds PLE
* SES-PLE : Severely Errored Seconds PLE
* UAS-PLE : Unavailable Seconds PLE
-->
12) <!--[rfced] Please review our edits to the following to ensure we have
captured your intended meaning.
Original:
Possible options, but not exhaustively, are a Diffserv-enabled
[RFC2475] PSN with a per domain behavior [RFC3086] supporting
Expedited Forwarding [RFC3246]. Traffic-engineered paths through the
PSN with bandwidth reservation and admission control applied. Or
capacity over-provisioning.
Current:
Possible options, but not exhaustively, are as follows:
* a Diffserv-enabled (see [RFC2475]) PSN with a per-domain behavior (see
[RFC3086]) supporting Expedited Forwarding (se
e [RFC3246]),
* traffic-engineered paths through the PSN with bandwidth reservation and
admission control applied, or
* capacity over-provisioning.
-->
13) <!--[rfced] Please confirm the use of "threads" (and not "threats") in
the following:
Original:
Clock synchronization leveraging PTP is sensitive to Packet Delay
Variation (PDV) and vulnerable to various threads and attack vectors.
-->
14) <!-- [rfced] Reference [G.824] was flagged as not being cited anywhere in
the text. Please review and let us know w
here it should be cited or if the reference entry should be removed.-->
15) <!-- [rfced] [G.8262] This ITU-T Recommendation was superseded in
October 2024. We have updated this reference to use the most
current version. Please let us know if you have any
objections.-->
16) <!-- [rfced] [FC-PI-2] The original URL for this reference -
https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/incits/incits4042006 - leads to an
error page on the ANSI webstore. We found the following URL that
points to the most recent version of this INCITS document. We have
updated this reference to use that URL. We have also updated the date
for this reference from 2006 to 2016 to match the information at the
URL. Please let us know if you have any objections. -->
17) <!-- [rfced] [FC-PI-5] A more recent version of this INCITS document is
avaialable here:
https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/incits/incits4792011s2021. May we
update this reference to use the most current version?-->
18) <!-- [rfced] [FC-PI-5am1] A more recent version of this INCITS
document is avaialable here:
https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/incits/incits4792011am2016r2021. May
we update this reference to use the most current version?-->
19) <!-- [rfced] For [FC-PI-6]: A more recent version of this INCITS
document is avaialable here:
https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/incits/incits5332016r2021. May
we update this reference to use the most current version?-->
20) <!-- [rfced] [FC-PI-6P]: A more recent version of this INCITS document
is avaialable here:
https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/incits/incits5332016r2021. May
we update this reference to use the most current version?-->
21) <!--[rfced] Please review instances in which a slash character "/" is
used and consider if "and", "or", or "and/or" might be clearer
for the reader. -->
22) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions related to terminology used
throughout the document:
a) We see multiple similar forms of the following terms. Please let us know
if/how they should be made consistent:
bit stream vs. bit-stream
lane vs. Lane
-->
23) <!-- [rfced] We had the following questions related to abbreviations
used throughout the document:
a) FYI - We have added expansions for abbreviations upon first use per
Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each
expansion in the document carefully to ensure correct use.
b) We cut abbreviations from the list in Section 3.1 that were not
used in the document after that list. Please let us know any
objections.
c) We see multiple expansions for the same abbreviation in the list
below. Please let us know the correct expansion:
VC - Virtual Container and Virtual Circuit
PMD - Physical Medium Dependent and Physical Media Dependent
d) We have made some slight updates to the list of abbreviations in
Section 3.1 in order to more closely match their cited references or
to more closely match the expansions used in RFCs generally. Please
review carefully and let us know if any further updates are necessary.
e) Please let us know how you would like to expand the abbreviation
"OOF". Should it be "Out of Frame"?
f) We will cut repeat expansions from abbreviations after first use
(to match the guidance at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#exp_abbrev) for the
following unless we hear objection:
TDM
LF
ACH
CBR
LSP
NOS
PDV
PLR
PMD
PTP
RTCP
SRTP
SD
SID
CSID
TTS
NSP
FEC
PCS
LPI
PLOS
DEG
-->
24) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We updated artwork to sourcecode with the type
"pseudocode" in Section 5.1.1. Please confirm that this is
correct.
In addition, please consider whether the "type" attribute of any
sourcecode element should be set and/or has been set correctly.
The current list of preferred values for "type" is available at
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types>.
If the current list does not contain an applicable type, feel free to
suggest additions for consideration. Note that it is also acceptable
to leave the "type" attribute not set.
-->
25) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in this document
should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container
for content that is semantically less important or tangential to
the content that surrounds it"
(https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside).
-->
26) <!-- [rfced] Some author comments are present in the XML. Please
confirm that no updates related to these comments are
outstanding. Note that the comments will be deleted prior to
publication.
-->
27) <!-- [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 the following should be updated:
native
-->
Thank you.
RFC Editor/mf
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2025/06/20
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/rfc9801.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9801.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9801.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9801.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9801-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9801-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9801-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9801
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC9801 (draft-ietf-pals-ple-15)
Title : Private Line Emulation over Packet Switched Networks
Author(s) : S. Gringeri, J. Whittaker, N. Leymann, C. Schmutzer, C. Brown
WG Chair(s) : Andrew G. Malis, Stewart Bryant
Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter Van de Velde
--
auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
