Hi Sarah, I reviewed the document and I approve.
Thanks, Mike. On Tuesday, October 7th, 2025 at 9:07 AM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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]
