Hi, Donald. We have changed "composed of" to "built on" per your note in email for RFC-to-be 9895:
>> 1. Should "composed of" be changed to "built on" in RFC-to-be 9894 >> as well, as was done per your first note further below for this >> document? >> >> From the latest rfc9894.txt: >> The extension defined in this document is composed of the mechanisms > > Donald: Yes, I think the change should be made in RFC-to-be 9894 as well. 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-lastdiff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9894-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9894-xmldiff1.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9894-xmldiff2.html Thank you! Lynne Bartholomew RFC Production Center > On Nov 17, 2025, at 11:24 AM, Lynne Bartholomew > <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]
