Christian, Thank you for your reply, guidance, and detailed review. We have some follow up questions/comments below marked with [rfced] for you to take a look at:
1) Regarding: >> 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. > > You mean if there expansion at first use but no second use in the document, > then the abbreviation will not be in the list of section 3.1? > > If so, no objections [rfced] Meaning either: a) they were not mentioned at all other than in the list in Section 3.1. For example, Autonomous System was included in the list in Section 3.1, but we could find no instances of AS, ASes, autonomous system, or Autonomous System in the body of the document. b) they were only used once in the document and appeared next to the expansion at that place (e.g., Virtual Tributary (VT)). 2) Regarding: > Btw I don’t want to make matters worse. I just realised some of those things > while trying to figure out how to respond here ;-) [rfced] We’ve tried to structure as follows for the ease of the reader and to match use in past RFCs: -expand on first use if they occur before Section 3.1 and if repeated in 3.1, we left them there -if the first use was in Section 3.1, cut any later expansions -it is ok to have starred abbreviations in Section 3.1 (left these alone) -it is ok to have starred abbreviations in the text and not in Section 3.1 whether or not they are expanded (as they are well known (left these alone)) Please let us know if any further changes are desired. >> 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). >> --> > > I was not aware of the aside element. I think it makes sense to put all the > notes into aside elements [rfced] Please review our updates to using the <aside> element. We have put only the paragraphs beginning with "Note:” into the element. If subsequent paragraphs should also go in <aside> please let us know. 3) Regarding: >> 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 >> >> --> > > Good question. I honestly don't know what is the best (I am not a English > native speaker). The terms ES-PLE, SES-PLE and UAS-PLE are inspired by Y.1563 > which defines SESETH where the ETH is in subscript. To do the same but avoid > the subscript I simply used -PLE > https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Y.1563/en > > Sadly Y1563 doesn’t expand the whole term SESETH so we can’t take an exact > example from that document. > > If you feel the flipped expansion still makes sense from a language > standpoint then lets flip them [rfced] After some internal discussion, we believe the best course of action is to leave these as you had them. Please disregard our query. We believe we have incorporated all other changes as requested. Please review the files carefully as we do not make changes after publication. The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9801.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9801.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9801.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9801.xml The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9801-diff.html (comprehensive diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9801-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes only) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9801-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 side by side) Please contact us with any further updates/questions/comments you may have. We will await approvals from each of the parties listed on the AUTH48 status page prior to moving forward to publication. The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9801 Thank you. RFC Editor/mf > On Jun 30, 2025, at 12:48 PM, Christian Schmutzer (cschmutz) > <cschmutz=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > Dear RFC Editor Team, > > Sorry it took a little while to process the very detailed review of yours. > > Please find inline feedback and change proposals as appropriate for the > comments > > > In addition to your comments here one change that came to my mind while > reviewing > > section 7.3 : Should we make the following changes to stay consistent with > the rest of the document? > > OLD: > Once unavailability is detected, ES and SES counts SHALL be inhibited > up to the point where the unavailability was started. Once > unavailability is removed, ES and SES that occurred along the > clearing period SHALL be added to the ES and SES counts. > > NEW: > Once unavailability is detected, ES-PLE and SES-PLE counts SHALL be > inhibited > up to the point where the unavailability was started. Once > unavailability is removed, ES-PLE and SES-PLE that occurred along the > clearing period SHALL be added to the ES-PLE and SES-PLE counts. > > > Please let me know if there are any questions on the responses and whether > you need more details. > > Regards > Christian > >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org >> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9801 <draft-ietf-pals-ple-15> for your review >> Date: 21. June 2025 at 03:47:04 CEST >> To: <steven.gring...@verizon.com>, <jeremy.whitta...@verizon.com>, >> <n.leym...@telekom.de>, <cschm...@cisco.com>, <cbr...@ciena.com> >> Cc: <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>, <pals-...@ietf.org>, >> <pals-cha...@ietf.org>, <stewart.bry...@gmail.com>, >> <gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com>, <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> >> >> 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. >> --> > > No objections > >> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in >> the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> > > pseudowires, circuit emulation, structure-agnostic emulation, bit-stream > payload, SR-MPLS, SRv6, IWF > >> 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. > > No 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. >> --> > > No objections, but looks like the files you provided don’t have this change > yet? > >> 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] >> --> > > Indeed. Lets use instead rfc4664 which defines VPWS and references 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. >> >> --> > > We meant to say “which means”. The “While … in this case “ does sound a bit > choppy to me. How about the following two options? > > NEW Option1: > PLE embraces the minimum intervention principle outlined in > Section 3.3.5 of [RFC3985], hence the data is flowing through the > PLE encapsulation layer as received without modifications. > > NEW Option2: > PLE embraces the minimum intervention principle outlined in > Section 3.3.5 of [RFC3985], which means 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. >> --> > > Good catch. It should be passive voice “is transferred” because the clock > difference was actually generated by PE2 > >> 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. >> >> --> > > Yes there is an and relationship. The proposal sounds good > >> 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. >> --> > > Yes it’s a good idea to align to the nomenclature of the SRH compression > draft. > > NEW: > The first SID is only placed in the Destination Address field of the IPv6 > header. > > >> 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. >> --> > > No it does not. The description of LEN is a slight variation of what is > written in RFC4553 section 4.3.1 where the LEN is always set to 0. How about > the following? > > NEW: > The preconfigured size of the PLE payload MUST be assumed to be as described > in Section 5.2, and if the actual packet size is inconsistent with this > length, the packet MUST be considered malformed. > > >> 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. >> >> --> > > Option A is what we meant > >> 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 >> >> --> > > Good question. I honestly don't know what is the best (I am not a English > native speaker). The terms ES-PLE, SES-PLE and UAS-PLE are inspired by Y.1563 > which defines SESETH where the ETH is in subscript. To do the same but avoid > the subscript I simply used -PLE > https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Y.1563/en > > Sadly Y1563 doesn’t expand the whole term SESETH so we can’t take an exact > example from that document. > > If you feel the flipped expansion still makes sense from a language > standpoint then lets flip them > >> 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. >> >> --> > > Great suggestion and you have captured the meaning perfectly and made the > text way more easy to read. > >> 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. >> >> --> > > Good catch, this is about security and should have been “threats” :-) > >> 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.--> > > You can remove it, I forgot to get rid of it > >> 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.--> > > No 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. —> > > No 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?--> > > Yes, please update > >> 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?--> > > Yes, please update > >> 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?--> > > Yes, please update but I think you have the wrong URL. The one you show here > is FC-PI-6P > > Please use https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/incits/incits5122015r2020 > >> 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?--> > > Yes, please update > >> 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. --> > > I found one instance that falls in this category. Is the proposed change > still easy to read? Its a triple or > > Original: > Each second with at least one packet lost or a PLOS/DEG defect SHALL be > counted as ES-PLE. Each second with a PLR greater than 15% or a PLOS/DEG > defect SHALL be counted as SES-PLE. > > NEW: > Each second with at least one packet lost or a PLOS defect or a DEG defect > SHALL be counted as ES-PLE. Each second with a PLR greater than 15% or a PLOS > defect or DEG defect SHALL be counted as SES-PLE. > >> 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 >> >> --> > > Yes, please change to bit-stream and lane consistently > > >> 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. > > Expansions look good > >> 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. > > You mean if there expansion at first use but no second use in the document, > then the abbreviation will not be in the list of section 3.1? > > If so, no 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 > > Virtual Container is correct > >> PMD - Physical Medium Dependent and Physical Media Dependent > > Physical Medium Dependent is correct > >> 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. > > Looks good > >> e) Please let us know how you would like to expand the abbreviation >> "OOF". Should it be "Out of Frame"? > > Yes, “Out of Frame” is correct > >> 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 >> >> --> > > Did you already do some cleanup? In the version you shared (rfc9801.txt) I > only see three abbreviations with multiple expansions > > LF > NOS > PDV > > > While doing the scrub of the document and cross-checking it with your list I > also realised that there are quite a few abbreviations never expanded. Some > of them have a * in > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=abbrev_list, so I guess no > expansion needed. But should they then also be removed from the list of > section 3.1? Also some of them not having a * > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=abbrev_list are missing in > the list of section 3.1 > > RTP > OTN > LOS > PMA > MS-AIS > AIS-L > INCITS > LOF > OOF > OTUk > LOM > ODUk > ODUk-AIS > MTU > LDP > RSVP-TE > TLV > FIB > SRv6 > EVPN-VPWS > RDI > TCP > ICMP > IEEE > AIS-L > MPLS > UAS > > Btw I don’t want to make matters worse. I just realised some of those things > while trying to figure out how to respond here ;-) > >> 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. >> --> > > Pseudocode is good. The artwork use is similar to section 4.1.1 of > RFC9800-to-be. Or RFC8986 section 4.1 > >> 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). >> --> > > I was not aware of the aside element. I think it makes sense to put all the > notes into aside elements > >> 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. >> --> > > No updates pending. Those were background infos I added over time but didn’t > remove > >> 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 >> --> > > Good catch, here my proposal to change the appearances of “native”. I don’t > think there are other changes needed > > OLD: > performing operations on the native data received from the CE > > NEW: > performing operations on the data received from the CE > > > OLD: > L > Set by the PE to indicate that data carried in the payload is > invalid due to an attachment circuit fault. The downstream PE > MUST send appropriate replacement data. The NSP MAY inject an > appropriate native fault propagation signal. > > NEW: > L > Set by the PE to indicate that data carried in the payload is > invalid due to an attachment circuit fault. The downstream PE > MUST send appropriate replacement data. The NSP MAY inject the > service specific native fault propagation signal. > > > OLD: > Whenever the VPWS is not operationally up, the CE-bound NSP function > MUST inject the appropriate native downstream fault-indication > signal. > > NEW: > Whenever the VPWS is not operationally up, the CE-bound NSP function > MUST inject the service specific downstream fault-indication > signal. > > > OLD: > them in the jitter buffer. The CE-bound NSP function will continue > to inject the appropriate native downstream fault-indication signal > until a preconfigured number of payload s stored in the jitter > buffer. > > NEW: > them in the jitter buffer. The CE-bound NSP function will continue > to inject the service specific downstream fault-indication signal > until a preconfigured number of payload s stored in the jitter > buffer. > > > OLD: > Whenever the L bit is set in the PLE control word of a received PLE > packet, the CE-bound NSP function SHOULD inject the appropriate > native downstream fault-indication signal instead of streaming out > the payload. > > NEW: > Whenever the L bit is set in the PLE control word of a received PLE > packet, the CE-bound NSP function SHOULD inject the service > Specific downstream fault-indication signal instead of streaming out > the payload. > > > OLD: > While the PLOS defect is declared, the CE-bound NSP function MUST > inject the appropriate native downstream fault-indication signal. > > NEW: > While the PLOS defect is declared, the CE-bound NSP function MUST > inject the service specific downstream fault-indication signal. > > > >> 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
