Hi, Jim. Thanks for the approval. Apologies if we're missing something. We just want to confirm how David Wiggins will be listed in these documents, since "point #1" could mean either question #1 or option #1. The three options (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/#missingauthor) are
= = = = = 1. The author can be removed as an author and moved to the Acknowledgements section. 2. The author can be removed as an author and moved to the Contributors section. 3. A stream manager can approve the document in place of the unavailable author. (See the IESG Statement on AUTH48 State.) Option 3 is typically used in instances where the missing author made significant contributions to the document and so the other authors are not comfortable removing the individual from the author list. = = = = = Option 3 appears to fit best here, because David is listed as an author in all four documents, but please let us know if you're approving Option 1 instead. Thank you! Lynne Bartholomew RFC Production Center > On Nov 18, 2025, at 3:23 AM, James Guichard <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Approved point #1. > > Jim > > Get Outlook for iOS > From: Donald Eastlake <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, November 17, 2025 5:50:12 PM > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] > <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] > <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; > [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] > <[email protected]>; James Guichard <[email protected]>; > [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [AD] [C541] AUTH48 Questions: RFCs-to-be 9892-9895 Hi, > > On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 5:16 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Authors and AD*, > > > > *AD, please see #1 below. > > > > Authors, while reviewing this cluster of documents*, please reply to > > the questions below regarding consistency across the cluster. These > > questions are in addition to the document-specific questions sent > > for each RFC-to-be. Your reply will likely impact two or more of the > > documents in the cluster, so please discuss off-list as necessary, > > and then let us know how to proceed. Note - You have the option of > > updating the edited XML files yourself, if you prefer. We will wait > > to hear from you before continuing with the publication process. > > > > * Cluster 541 (C541) currently in AUTH48 state: > > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7Ca36d779bda75419cbe9a08de262bb47f%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638990166334077197%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=W1YwkE%2FxuneOHTfwZgo4%2Bobbs9RFrgzYyWXGfkK4ypA%3D&reserved=0 > > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9893.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7Ca36d779bda75419cbe9a08de262bb47f%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638990166334107216%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=A8y14pbyPFztManppqMv29XEYiaVfTY9YLLiLqSg0NI%3D&reserved=0 > > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9894.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7Ca36d779bda75419cbe9a08de262bb47f%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638990166334125843%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=HhKh91JoLzTXvbGmZ81Uqcj6W53nWJLvtEsHI%2Fyqlk0%3D&reserved=0 > > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9895.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7Ca36d779bda75419cbe9a08de262bb47f%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638990166334142768%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hJnU%2B82QSTBr6aeQe9oStE1nacLJuXmmHD2gglJAz7E%3D&reserved=0 > > (In addition, the .pdf, .txt, .xml, and diff files are available.) > > > > You may track the progress of all documents in this cluster through > > AUTH48 at: > > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2FC541&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7Ca36d779bda75419cbe9a08de262bb47f%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638990166334162763%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=S0OcuOb3Ze9ls3w02y3FRbgNG8Siahm%2BuYMd5U0rdWc%3D&reserved=0 > > > > 1) *AD - We are sorry to hear of the passing of David Wiggins and > > Stan Ratliff. David is listed as an author for RFCs-to-be 9892, > > 9893, 9894, and 9895 (all documents in the cluster). Stan is listed > > as an author for RFC-to-be 9893. > > > > As AD, please confirm that you will approve the documents on behalf > > of David and Stan. (Note: Any of the three options at > > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ffaq%2F%23missingauthor&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7Ca36d779bda75419cbe9a08de262bb47f%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638990166334180915%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=YLeDicmXde9pSa%2Ft8G%2BXpk2S6Xh9VjDJF2VroeDeRzE%3D&reserved=0 > > are acceptable.) > > > > 2) FYI - We updated "DiffServ" to "Diffserv" throughout the cluster > > per > > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Frpc%2Fwiki%2Fdoku.php%3Fid%3Dterms&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7Ca36d779bda75419cbe9a08de262bb47f%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638990166334197858%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=atY57JHTAZ7QeMpL5mLH9BNxJXxuQb%2FGo7wKELw%2BEWg%3D&reserved=0. > > If no > > objections, we will ask IANA to update the following descriptions > > prior to publication. > > > Link to registry group: > > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fdlep-parameters&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7Ca36d779bda75419cbe9a08de262bb47f%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C638990166334212183%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hzyQaFS08EtAFs77D20vhQfL0syvgRJN5PlWxFpBPK0%3D&reserved=0 > > > > "Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type Values" registry > > (draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification): > > > > OLD: > > DiffServ Traffic Classification > > > > NEW: > > Diffserv Traffic Classification > > > > "Extension Type Values" registry > > (draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension): > > > > OLD: > > DiffServ Aware Credit Window > > > > NEW: > > Diffserv Aware Credit Window > > I think these updates to only an initial captial letter are fine and > result in conformance to RFC Editor defaults. > > > 3) We see "Credit window control" (beginning of sentence, so the "C" is > > capitalized) but "credit-window scheme". We suggest updating to "credit > > window > > scheme" (no hyphen). > > OK with me. > > > 4) Do "credit window control" (approx. 24 instances in cluster) and "credit > > window flow control" (3 instances in cluster) mean the same thing? Will the > > interchangeable usage of these terms - or the distinction between the two - > > be clear to readers? > > Yes, I would say they mean the same thing in these documents. "credit > window flow control" is just a more complete term and if there are > seveal uses in the same paragraph or the like, it is reasonable to use > the more complete term initially and the shortened term subsequently. > > > 5) We see both "Type Value" and "Type value" in running text. Which > > form is preferred? > > > > Some examples: > > "Message Type value" in draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control > > > > "DLEP Extension Type Value" in > > draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension and > > draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension > > > > "DiffServ Aware Credit Window Type Value" in > > draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension > > > > "IEEE 802.1Q Aware Credit Window Type Value" in > > draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension > > I am inclined to capitalize Value. > > > 6) 'Rick Taylor's "Data Item Containers"' is only mentioned in the > > Acknowledgments sections of two of the four documents in this group > > (draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification and > > draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension). Would you like to add the > > applicable sentence to the Acknowledgments sections of > > draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control and > > draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension as well? > > Yes, I think it would be reasonable and consistant to add that > sentence to the Acknowledgements sections of the other two > drafts. They all mention Data Items. > > 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 -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
