Hi Megan,
Thank you for the quick turnaround and the detailed explanation on the approach
for the abbreviations … no further changes required there.
The <aside> changes for the notes look good.
Also the other changes look good !
Three remaining nits (if I may):
1. Section 5.1 and C-SID vs CSID
RFC9800-to-be is using CSID, I think we should use the same. Which means adding
“CSID: compressed SID” to section 3.1 and no expansion in section 5.1, just
mentioning of CSID
2. Replacing “native”
In sections 5.2 and 7.2.2 we have several sentences saying “inject …
appropriate specific fault … signal"
I think saying “appropriate specific” is somewhat redundant (without the
“service” in between which refers to the emulated service defined in section 4)
Thinking about it again I wonder, if it is best if drop the word “specific” and
we simply make all these sentences say “… inject the appropriate downstream
fault-indication signal …”. In the end they all refer to the same thing, the
slight spelling diff in section 5.2 and 7.2.2 was not intentional
3. LEN changes
Reading this paragraph again I think I gave improper guidance (i.e. the section
# was wrong), sorry about that. Here a proposal
CURRENT:
LEN:
In accordance with Section 3 of [RFC4385], the length field MUST
always be set to zero as there is no padding added to the PLE
packet. The preconfigured size of the PLE payload MUST be assumed
to be as described in Section 5.2; if the actual packet size is
inconsistent with this length, the packet MUST be considered
malformed. To detect malformed packets the default, preconfigured
or signaled payload size MUST be assumed.
NEW:
LEN:
In accordance with Section 3 of [RFC4385], the length field MUST
always be set to zero as there is no padding added to the PLE
packet. The size of the PLE payload MUST be assumed
to be as described in Section 6; if the actual packet size is
inconsistent with this, the packet MUST be considered
malformed.
Cheers
Christian
On 30.06.2025, at 22:20, Megan Ferguson <mfergu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote:
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
