Hi Pavan, Shaofu, Gyan, and Balaji, Thank you for your replies. We have marked your approvals on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9863).
We will await approval from Mike prior to moving this document forward in the publication process. Thank you, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Oct 7, 2025, at 7:22 AM, Balaji Rajagopalan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > >> Contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the document > in its current form. > I believe the document is ready for publication in its current form. Please > treat this as my approval. > -- > Balaji Rajagopalan > > Juniper Business Use Only > From: Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> > Date: Monday, 6 October 2025 at 9:36 PM > To: Balaji Rajagopalan <[email protected]>, Vishnu Pavan Kumar Beeram > <[email protected]>, > [email protected]<[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, > [email protected]<[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, John > Scudder <[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9863 <draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-12> for your > review > [External Email. Be cautious of content] > > > Hi Authors, > > This is a friendly reminder that we have yet to hear back from some of you > regarding this document’s readiness for publication. > > Please review the AUTH48 status page > (https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9863__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!ALYl-Ei3PSN4-AQm6ynyc0jOl-vz0FfnAlISB_JRNRJqvETxg7l7o4J_NY-B8RBpeC7Spg2gP6IjMNg0K2tZ4mwZCRo$) > for further information and the previous messages in this thread for > pertinent communication. > > Thank you, > Sarah Tarrant > RFC Production Center > > > On Sep 29, 2025, at 9:00 AM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > Hi Pavan, > > > > Thank you for your reply. We have updated the document accordingly and have > > no further questions. > > > > Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not > > make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any > > further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form. > > We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the > > publication process. > > > > The updated files have been posted here (please refresh): > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9863.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!ALYl-Ei3PSN4-AQm6ynyc0jOl-vz0FfnAlISB_JRNRJqvETxg7l7o4J_NY-B8RBpeC7Spg2gP6IjMNg0K2tZWf6bG9w$ > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9863.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!ALYl-Ei3PSN4-AQm6ynyc0jOl-vz0FfnAlISB_JRNRJqvETxg7l7o4J_NY-B8RBpeC7Spg2gP6IjMNg0K2tZPtM3kHc$ > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9863.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!ALYl-Ei3PSN4-AQm6ynyc0jOl-vz0FfnAlISB_JRNRJqvETxg7l7o4J_NY-B8RBpeC7Spg2gP6IjMNg0K2tZmSbCdKo$ > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9863.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!ALYl-Ei3PSN4-AQm6ynyc0jOl-vz0FfnAlISB_JRNRJqvETxg7l7o4J_NY-B8RBpeC7Spg2gP6IjMNg0K2tZ9XggNr0$ > > > > The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9863-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!ALYl-Ei3PSN4-AQm6ynyc0jOl-vz0FfnAlISB_JRNRJqvETxg7l7o4J_NY-B8RBpeC7Spg2gP6IjMNg0K2tZV7beMHQ$ > > (comprehensive diff) > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9863-auth48diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!ALYl-Ei3PSN4-AQm6ynyc0jOl-vz0FfnAlISB_JRNRJqvETxg7l7o4J_NY-B8RBpeC7Spg2gP6IjMNg0K2tZAHziOyw$ > > (AUTH48 changes only) > > > > Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the > > most recent version. > > > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9863__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!ALYl-Ei3PSN4-AQm6ynyc0jOl-vz0FfnAlISB_JRNRJqvETxg7l7o4J_NY-B8RBpeC7Spg2gP6IjMNg0K2tZgfIxJN4$ > > > > Thank you, > > Sarah Tarrant > > RFC Production Center > > > >> On Sep 26, 2025, at 5:57 PM, Vishnu Pavan Kumar Beeram > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Apologies for the delayed response. > >> > >> Please see inline (prefixed VPB). > >> > >> Regards, > >> -Pavan (on behalf of the authors) > >> > >> > >> Juniper Business Use Only > >> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > >> Date: Thursday, September 18, 2025 at 10:56 PM > >> To: Balaji Rajagopalan <[email protected]>, Vishnu Pavan Kumar Beeram > >> <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, > >> [email protected] <[email protected]>, > >> [email protected]<[email protected]> > >> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, > >> [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] > >> <[email protected]>, [email protected]<[email protected]>, > >> John Scudder <[email protected]>, [email protected] > >> <[email protected]> > >> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9863 <draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-12> for > >> your review > >> > >> [External Email. Be cautious of content] > >> > >> > >> Authors, > >> > >> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) > >> the following questions, which are also in the source file. > >> > >> 1) <!--[rfced] We note that this document uses terms such as "PCEP Peer", > >> "TE Tunnel", and "SR Policy" with the second word capitalized. If > >> the intention is to use these terms with a specific meaning, would > >> you like to add a sentence stating where to find that definition? > >> For example: > >> > >> Perhaps: > >> This document uses the following terms: > >> > >> PCEP Peer as defined in [RFC5440] > >> SR Policy as defined in [RFC8402] > >> --> > >> > >> [VPB] Yes, these terms have a specific meaning. It should be sufficient to > >> add a reference at initial use. > >> • "PCEP Peer" appears only once — please add RFC 5440 immediately after > >> it. > >> • "TE Tunnel" appears three times, while “TE tunnel” appears four times > >> — RFC3209 uses both interchangeably. I would pick “TE Tunnel” and use it > >> everywhere. > >> • “SR Policy” and “SR policy” appear four times each; RFC9256 uses “SR > >> Policy”. So, I would recommend using “SR Policy” everywhere. > >> > >> 2) <!-- [rfced] In many RFCs, the text following a TLV diagram is a > >> definition > >> list rather than a paragraph. Would you like to update this as follows? > >> Current: > >> Type has the value 67. Length carries a value of 4. The "color" > >> field is 4 bytes long and carries the actual color value (specified > >> as an unsigned integer). A color value of zero is allowed. > >> Perhaps: > >> Type: 67 > >> Length: 4 > >> Color: 4-byte field that carries the actual color value (specified > >> as an unsigned integer). A value of zero is allowed. > >> --> > >> > >> [VPB] No objection. > >> > >> 3) <!-- [rfced] Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to > >> be used > >> inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how they > >> may be made consistent. > >> COLOR TLV vs. Color TLV > >> OPEN vs. open (one instance of each) > >> TE Tunnel vs. TE tunnel > >> SR Policy vs. SR policy > >> --> > >> > >> [VPB] Please use COLOR TLV, TE Tunnel and SR Policy. > >> The use of “Open” for referencing the Open message and “OPEN” for > >> referencing the OPEN object is correct — please leave it as is. > >> > >> 4) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the > >> online > >> Style Guide > >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/*inclusive_language__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!F5J-CjMecNcavet_CjRWiQ7PPub97i8j1wBJK4LCBFF6K-qfVcES5CYHhm5yQ3_r1HMtZf9omRUZe3m3sjK3nRAH$ > >> > > >> 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. > >> --> > >> > >> [VPB] I did not find anything that violates the “Inclusive Language” > >> requirements. > >> > >> Thank you. > >> Sarah Tarrant and Alice Russo > >> RFC Production Center > >> On Sep 18, 2025, [email protected] wrote: > >> *****IMPORTANT***** > >> Updated 2025/09/18 > >> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!F5J-CjMecNcavet_CjRWiQ7PPub97i8j1wBJK4LCBFF6K-qfVcES5CYHhm5yQ3_r1HMtZf9omRUZe3m3spsjz7gI$ > >> ). > >> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!F5J-CjMecNcavet_CjRWiQ7PPub97i8j1wBJK4LCBFF6K-qfVcES5CYHhm5yQ3_r1HMtZf9omRUZe3m3siw8c4F1$ > >> ). > >> * 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!F5J-CjMecNcavet_CjRWiQ7PPub97i8j1wBJK4LCBFF6K-qfVcES5CYHhm5yQ3_r1HMtZf9omRUZe3m3stLXyAj6$ > >> >. > >> * 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 > >> * [email protected] (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). > >> * [email protected], which is a new archival mailing list > >> to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion > >> list: > >> * More info: > >> > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!F5J-CjMecNcavet_CjRWiQ7PPub97i8j1wBJK4LCBFF6K-qfVcES5CYHhm5yQ3_r1HMtZf9omRUZe3m3su6xwzk2$ > >> * The archive itself: > >> > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!F5J-CjMecNcavet_CjRWiQ7PPub97i8j1wBJK4LCBFF6K-qfVcES5CYHhm5yQ3_r1HMtZf9omRUZe3m3sq4Opbdv$ > >> * 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, > >> [email protected] 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9863.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!F5J-CjMecNcavet_CjRWiQ7PPub97i8j1wBJK4LCBFF6K-qfVcES5CYHhm5yQ3_r1HMtZf9omRUZe3m3snioPxPJ$ > >> > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9863.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!F5J-CjMecNcavet_CjRWiQ7PPub97i8j1wBJK4LCBFF6K-qfVcES5CYHhm5yQ3_r1HMtZf9omRUZe3m3srIyDsdI$ > >> > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9863.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!F5J-CjMecNcavet_CjRWiQ7PPub97i8j1wBJK4LCBFF6K-qfVcES5CYHhm5yQ3_r1HMtZf9omRUZe3m3skZlQNNA$ > >> > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9863.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!F5J-CjMecNcavet_CjRWiQ7PPub97i8j1wBJK4LCBFF6K-qfVcES5CYHhm5yQ3_r1HMtZf9omRUZe3m3srM6Hfoc$ > >> Diff file of the text: > >> > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9863-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!F5J-CjMecNcavet_CjRWiQ7PPub97i8j1wBJK4LCBFF6K-qfVcES5CYHhm5yQ3_r1HMtZf9omRUZe3m3shWwtW8E$ > >> > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9863-rfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!F5J-CjMecNcavet_CjRWiQ7PPub97i8j1wBJK4LCBFF6K-qfVcES5CYHhm5yQ3_r1HMtZf9omRUZe3m3sh181G8O$ > >> (side by side) > >> Diff of the XML: > >> > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9863-xmldiff1.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!F5J-CjMecNcavet_CjRWiQ7PPub97i8j1wBJK4LCBFF6K-qfVcES5CYHhm5yQ3_r1HMtZf9omRUZe3m3slJc2QRs$ > >> Tracking progress > >> ----------------- > >> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > >> > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9863__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!F5J-CjMecNcavet_CjRWiQ7PPub97i8j1wBJK4LCBFF6K-qfVcES5CYHhm5yQ3_r1HMtZf9omRUZe3m3skX3nsCn$ > >> Please let us know if you have any questions. > >> Thank you for your cooperation, > >> RFC Editor > >> -------------------------------------- > >> RFC9863 (draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-12) > >> Title : Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Extension for > >> Color > >> Author(s) : B. Rajagopalan, V. Beeram, S. Peng, M. Koldychev, G. > >> Mishra > >> WG Chair(s) : Julien Meuric, Dhruv Dhody > >> Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter Van de Velde > > > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
