Hi, On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 5:08 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > Authors, > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as > necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source > file. > > 1) <!-- [rfced] Document title: FYI, for ease of the reader and per our > process, we expanded "DLEP" in the title. Please review. > > Original: > DLEP DiffServ Aware Credit Window Extension > > Currently: > Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Diffserv Aware Credit Window > Extension > -->
OK. > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the > title) for use on <https://www.rfc-editor.org/search>. --> I can't think of any other good keywords. > 3) <!-- [rfced] For ease of the reader, we expanded "CLI" where first > used, per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide" - > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7322>). Please review, and > let us know any objections. > > CLI: Command-Line Interface --> Since it appears the "CLI" is used only once, I suggest deleting "(CLI)" and just saying "Command-Line Interface". > 4) <!-- [rfced] Section 3: We changed "the mismatch of capabilities" to > "any mismatch in capabilities" per > draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension. Please let us know any > objections. > > Original: > In either case, the mismatch of capabilities SHOULD be > reported to the user via normal network management mechanisms such as > user interface messages or error logging. > > Currently: > In either case, any mismatch in capabilities SHOULD be > reported to the user via normal network management mechanisms, such > as user interface messages or error logging. --> OK. Consistency with ether-credit-extension is good. > 5) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the > online Style Guide at > <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. > > Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this > should still be reviewed as a best practice. --> I do not think any changes are needed for this reason. > 6) <!-- [rfced] Please let us know if any changes are needed for the > following: > > a) The following term was used inconsistently in this document. > We chose to use the latter form. Please let us know any objections. > > Sub-Data item / Sub-Data Item (as used elsewhere in this document > and per the other documents in this group (Cluster 541 / > https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C541) of documents) Use of the all-caps version is fine. > b) The following term appears to be used inconsistently in this document. > Please let us know which form is preferred. (Note that we updated "DiffServ" > to "Diffserv" in the document already.) > > DiffServ Aware Credit Window Type Value / > DiffServ Aware Credit Window Extension Type Value --> Probably best to go with the more explicit version including the word "Extension". Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA [email protected] > Thank you. > > Lynne Bartholomew and Rebecca VanRheenen > RFC Production Center > > > > On Nov 14, 2025, at 2:05 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > Updated 2025/11/14 > > 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 > > * [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://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, > [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://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9894.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9894.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9894.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9894.txt > > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9894-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9894-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff of the XML: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9894-xmldiff1.html > > > Tracking progress > ----------------- > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9894 > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > > -------------------------------------- > RFC9894 (draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension-21) > > Title : DLEP DiffServ Aware Credit Window Extension > Author(s) : B. Cheng, D. Wiggins, L. Berger, D. Eastlake 3rd, Ed. > WG Chair(s) : Don Fedyk, Ronald in 't Velt, Donald E. Eastlake 3rd > > Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter Van de Velde -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
