Hi, Donald. Thank you for your prompt reply! We have updated this document per your notes below.
The latest files are posted here. Please refresh your browser: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9894.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9894.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9894.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9894.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9894-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9894-rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9894-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9894-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9894-xmldiff1.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9894-xmldiff2.html Thanks again! Lynne Bartholomew RFC Production Center > On Nov 16, 2025, at 6:37 PM, Donald Eastlake <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]
