Hi, Donald and everyone. Donald, we have updated the documents per your latest notes below. Authors/coauthors, please let us know any concerns.
Because there are quite a few updates -- particularly as related to "credit window control" vs. "credit window flow control" in draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control (RFC-to-be 9893; also, some of the listed updates referred to outdated copy) -- please review our updates carefully, and let us know if we missed anything or if anything is incorrect. The latest files are posted here. Please refresh your browser: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9892.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9892.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9892.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9892.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9892-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9892-rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9892-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9892-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9892-lastdiff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9892-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9892-xmldiff1.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9892-xmldiff2.html = = = = = https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893-rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893-lastdiff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893-xmldiff1.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893-xmldiff2.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893-alt-diff.html = = = = = 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 = = = = = https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895-rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895-lastdiff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895-xmldiff1.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895-xmldiff2.html = = = = = Thank you! Lynne Bartholomew RFC Production Center > On Nov 23, 2025, at 10:18 AM, Donald Eastlake <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Lynne, > > I am generally willing to go with the suggestions of Ron/Lou who have > more history and knowledge in these draft areas than I do. See > specific responses below. > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 1:25 PM Lynne Bartholomew > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi, Donald, Ronald, Lou, and Don. >> >> Thank you for your replies. Lou, we did not receive your first response, so >> thank you for sending another. >> >> Don, adding you to the "To:" list, because Lou suggests three updates to >> RFC-to-be 9892; please see his response below regarding our question 4). >> >> Donald, Ronald, and Lou, we have updated RFCs-to-be 9893, 9894, and 9895 to >> use "credit window scheme" (no hyphen) per your (Donald's and Lou's) notes >> below. >> >> = = = = = >> >> Please note that we will need the authors to reach agreement regarding our >> questions 4), 5), and 6) before we make further updates. Please advise: >> >> 4): "credit window control" (approx. 24 instances in cluster) vs. "credit >> window flow control" >> (3 instances in cluster): Authors need to reach agreement on this. >> >> Donald's reply: >> 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. >> >> Lou's reply: >> So the, albeit subtle, distinction between the terms is that "credit window >> flow control" is the overall preprocess of using credit-based flow control, >> while "credit window control" relates to the mechanisms/procedures defined >> to grant and maintain credits. I think the alternatives are to leave as is >> or to clarify the distinction. >> for the latter, my suggestions are: >> OLD >> credit/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension.xml: credit window control >> mechanisms defined in <xref >> credit/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension.xml: the credit window >> control and flow mechanisms defined in <xref >> ether-credit/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension.xml: >> traffic classification and credit window control mechanisms >> ether-credit/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension.xml: and >> the credit window control and flow mechanisms defined in >> tc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification.xml: with applications >> such as credit window control as specified in >> tc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification.xml: The credit window >> control document provides an >> tc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification.xml: credit window >> control, allows credit windows to be shared >> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: Credit window control >> is used to regulate when data may be sent to >> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: introduces support >> for credit window control by defining two new DLEP >> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: The use of credit >> window control impacts the data plane. >> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: The credit window >> control mechanisms defined in this document >> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: requiring the use of >> credit window control is used. >> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: The defined credit >> window control has similar objectives as the >> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: Two new messages are >> defined in support for credit window control: >> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: <name>Credit Window >> Control Data Items</name> >> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: Five new Data Items >> are defined to support credit window control. >> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: the credit window >> control defined in this document is used. Note >> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: This document >> introduces credit window control and flow mechanisms >> NEW >> credit/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension.xml: credit window flow >> control mechanisms defined in <xref >> credit/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension.xml: the credit window >> flow control mechanisms defined in <xref >> ether-credit/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension.xml: >> traffic classification and credit window flow control mechanisms >> ether-credit/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension.xml: and >> the credit window flow control mechanisms defined in >> tc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification.xml: with applications >> such as credit window flow control as specified in >> tc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification.xml: The credit window >> flow control document provides an >> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: introduces support >> for credit window flow control by defining two new DLEP >> tc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification.xml: credit window flow >> control, allows credit windows to be shared >> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: Credit window flow >> control is used to regulate when data may be sent to >> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: <name>Credit Window >> Flow Control</name> >> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: REPLACE: The use of >> credit window control impacts the data plane. >> >> WITH: The additions provide the DLEP mechanisms to control >> credits. Routers then use this >> >> information to regulate when data is sent to a >> modem. >> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: The credit window flow >> control mechanisms defined in this document >> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: requiring the use of >> credit window flow control is used. >> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: The defined credit >> window flow control has similar objectives as the >> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: Two new messages are >> defined in support for control of credit windows: >> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: Five new Data Items >> are defined to support the control of credit windows. >> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: the credit window >> flow control defined in this document is used. Note >> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: This document >> introduces credit window flow control mechanisms >> some of the above could refer to either the process or the mechanisms , in >> which case I chose process. I think this leaves one instance: >> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: <name>Credit Window >> Control Data Items</name> >> I think this is better then "Data Items for the Control of Credit Windows" >> -- but this too is acceptable. > > I am OK with Lou's changes above. > >> 5): "Type Value" vs: "Type value": Authors need to reach agreement on this. >> >> Donald's reply: >> I am inclined to capitalize Value. >> >> Lou's reply: >> lower case. to be consistent with rfc8175. > > Ok with lower case. > > >> 6): 'Rick Taylor's "Data Item Containers"' only mentioned in two of the >> four documents: Authors need to reach agreement on the following: >> >> Donald's reply: >> Yes, I think it would be reasonable and consistent to add that >> sentence to the Acknowledgements sections of the other two >> drafts. They all mention Data Items. >> >> Ronald's reply: >> Here I have to disagree with my esteemed co-chair. Note that I am not an >> author on any of these documents, so consider the following as no more than >> an >> opinion. >> >> I would move in the opposite direction and keep the acknowledgment of Rick >> Taylor as "the father of Sub-Data Items" *only* in >> draft-ietf-manet-traffic-classification. It is not my intention to diminish >> in >> any way the numerous and important contributions of Rick Taylor to the >> cluster >> of credit-based flow control I-Ds, DLEP as a whole or the MANET WG in >> general, >> but the mention of "Data Item Containers" as a predecessor of "Sub-Data >> Items" >> only makes sense in draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification as this is >> the only document in the cluster to actually specify Sub-Data Items. I >> believe >> the acknowledgment of Rick Taylor in >> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension >> is there for "hysterical raisins", i.e., as a left-over from the earliest >> versions of this draft which included the Traffic Classification Data Item >> and >> its Sub-Data Items before these were moved elsewhere in version -05. See >> also >> the Acknowledgment section of RFC 8651. (As an aside: I don't like "Sub-Data >> Item" as a term. I would have preferred "Data Item Sub-item" or perhaps "Data >> Sub-item" or "Data Item Sub-TLV". It is way too late to make any such change, >> however, because RFC 8651 has set a precedent). >> >> Lou's reply: >> I'd leave as is or go with Ronald's proposal. > > I'm fine either way so I suggest following Ron's recommendation. > > > Thanks, > Donald > =============================== > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA > [email protected] > >> = = = = = >> >> In the meantime, the latest copies of RFCs-to-be 9893, 9894, and 9895 are >> posted here. Please refresh your browser: >> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893.txt >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893.xml >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893-diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893-auth48diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by >> side) >> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893-alt-diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893-xmldiff1.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893-xmldiff2.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893-alt-diff.html >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895.txt >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895.xml >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895-diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895-auth48diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by >> side) >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895-lastdiff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) >> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895-xmldiff1.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895-xmldiff2.html >> >> Thanks again! >> >> Lynne Bartholomew >> RFC Production Center >> >> >>> On Nov 19, 2025, at 5:14 AM, Lou Berger <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Donald, >>> >>> Thank you for the response! please see my email (which got delayed due to >>> mailer issues) and let me/us know if you are okay with my responses. >>> >>> Lou >>> >>> On 11/17/2025 5:50 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote: >>>> 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://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9892.html >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893.html >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9894.html >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895.html >>>>> (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://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C541 >>>>> >>>>> 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://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/#missingauthor are acceptable.) >>>>> >>>>> 2) FYI - We updated "DiffServ" to "Diffserv" throughout the cluster >>>>> per https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=terms. If no >>>>> objections, we will ask IANA to update the following descriptions >>>>> prior to publication. >>>>> Link to registry group: https://www.iana.org/assignments/dlep-parameters >>>>> >>>>> "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] >> >> >>> On Nov 19, 2025, at 5:11 AM, Lou Berger <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> sigh - my mailer (on my phone) seems to have eaten my first response. [If >>> you have a copy, please send it back to me ;-)] >>> This response has additional response - so if you did receive the first >>> message, please use this message in its place. >>> Thank you, >>> Lou >>> PS I see there are other responses (Thank you!) and I'll respond to those >>> if I have anything to add. >>> On 11/14/2025 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://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9892.html >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893.html >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9894.html >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895.html >>>> (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://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C541 >>>> >>>> >>>> 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://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/#missingauthor are acceptable.) >>>> >>>> >>>> 2) FYI - We updated "DiffServ" to "Diffserv" throughout the cluster per >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=terms. If no objections, we >>>> will ask IANA to update the following descriptions prior to publication. >>>> >>>> Link to registry group: https://www.iana.org/assignments/dlep-parameters >>>> >>>> "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 >>>> >>> looks, right. Thank you. >>> >>>> >>>> 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). >>>> >>> Sure. >>>> >>>> >>>> 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? >>>> >>> So the, albeit subtle, distinction between the terms is that "credit window >>> flow control" is the overall preprocess of using credit-based flow control, >>> while "credit window control" relates to the mechanisms/procedures defined >>> to grant and maintain credits. I think the alternatives are to leave as is >>> or to clarify the distinction. >>> for the latter, my suggestions are: >>> OLD >>> credit/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension.xml: credit window >>> control mechanisms defined in <xref >>> credit/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension.xml: the credit window >>> control and flow mechanisms defined in <xref >>> ether-credit/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension.xml: >>> traffic classification and credit window control mechanisms >>> ether-credit/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension.xml: and >>> the credit window control and flow mechanisms defined in >>> tc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification.xml: with applications >>> such as credit window control as specified in >>> tc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification.xml: The credit window >>> control document provides an >>> tc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification.xml: credit window >>> control, allows credit windows to be shared >>> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: Credit window control >>> is used to regulate when data may be sent to >>> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: introduces support >>> for credit window control by defining two new DLEP >>> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: The use of credit >>> window control impacts the data plane. >>> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: The credit window >>> control mechanisms defined in this document >>> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: requiring the use of >>> credit window control is used. >>> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: The defined credit >>> window control has similar objectives as the >>> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: Two new messages are >>> defined in support for credit window control: >>> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: <name>Credit >>> Window Control Data Items</name> >>> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: Five new Data Items >>> are defined to support credit window control. >>> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: the credit window >>> control defined in this document is used. Note >>> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: This document >>> introduces credit window control and flow mechanisms >>> NEW >>> credit/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension.xml: credit window flow >>> control mechanisms defined in <xref >>> credit/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension.xml: the credit window >>> flow control mechanisms defined in <xref >>> ether-credit/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension.xml: >>> traffic classification and credit window flow control mechanisms >>> ether-credit/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension.xml: and >>> the credit window flow control mechanisms defined in >>> tc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification.xml: with applications >>> such as credit window flow control as specified in >>> tc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification.xml: The credit window >>> flow control document provides an >>> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: introduces support >>> for credit window flow control by defining two new DLEP >>> tc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification.xml: credit window >>> flow control, allows credit windows to be shared >>> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: Credit window flow >>> control is used to regulate when data may be sent to >>> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: <name>Credit Window >>> Flow Control</name> >>> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: REPLACE: The use of >>> credit window control impacts the data plane. >>> >>> WITH: The additions provide the DLEP mechanisms to control >>> credits. Routers then use this >>> >>> information to regulate when data is sent to a >>> modem. >>> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: The credit window flow >>> control mechanisms defined in this document >>> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: requiring the use of >>> credit window flow control is used. >>> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: The defined credit >>> window flow control has similar objectives as the >>> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: Two new messages are >>> defined in support for control of credit windows: >>> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: Five new Data Items >>> are defined to support the control of credit windows. >>> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: the credit window >>> flow control defined in this document is used. Note >>> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: This document >>> introduces credit window flow control mechanisms >>> some of the above could refer to ether the process or the mechanisms , in >>> which case I chose process. I think this leaves one instance: >>> fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: <name>Credit >>> Window Control Data Items</name> >>> I think this is better then "Data Items for the Control of Credit Windows" >>> -- but this too is acceptable. >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> lower case. to be consistent with rfc8175. >>>> 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? >>>> >>> I'd leave as is or go with Ronald's proposal. >>> Thank you! >>> Lou >> >> >>> On Nov 18, 2025, at 3:42 PM, Lou Berger <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> WFM - thanks! >>> >>> Lou >>> >>> On 11/18/2025 6:37 PM, Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>> Here I have to disagree with my esteemed co-chair. Note that I am not an >>>> author on any of these documents, so consider the following as no more >>>> than an >>>> opinion. >>>> >>>> I would move in the opposite direction and keep the acknowledgment of Rick >>>> Taylor as "the father of Sub-Data Items" *only* in >>>> draft-ietf-manet-traffic-classification. It is not my intention to >>>> diminish in >>>> any way the numerous and important contributions of Rick Taylor to the >>>> cluster >>>> of credit-based flow control I-Ds, DLEP as a whole or the MANET WG in >>>> general, >>>> but the mention of "Data Item Containers" as a predecessor of "Sub-Data >>>> Items" >>>> only makes sense in draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification as this is >>>> the only document in the cluster to actually specify Sub-Data Items. I >>>> believe >>>> the acknowledgment of Rick Taylor in >>>> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension >>>> is there for "hysterical raisins", i.e., as a left-over from the earliest >>>> versions of this draft which included the Traffic Classification Data Item >>>> and >>>> its Sub-Data Items before these were moved elsewhere in version -05. See >>>> also >>>> the Acknowledgment section of RFC 8651. (As an aside: I don't like >>>> "Sub-Data >>>> Item" as a term. I would have preferred "Data Item Sub-item" or perhaps >>>> "Data >>>> Sub-item" or "Data Item Sub-TLV". It is way too late to make any such >>>> change, >>>> however, because RFC 8651 has set a precedent). >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Ronald >>> >> >> >>> On Nov 18, 2025, at 3:37 PM, Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>>>> 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. >>> >>> Here I have to disagree with my esteemed co-chair. Note that I am not an >>> author on any of these documents, so consider the following as no more than >>> an >>> opinion. >>> >>> I would move in the opposite direction and keep the acknowledgment of Rick >>> Taylor as "the father of Sub-Data Items" *only* in >>> draft-ietf-manet-traffic-classification. It is not my intention to diminish >>> in >>> any way the numerous and important contributions of Rick Taylor to the >>> cluster >>> of credit-based flow control I-Ds, DLEP as a whole or the MANET WG in >>> general, >>> but the mention of "Data Item Containers" as a predecessor of "Sub-Data >>> Items" >>> only makes sense in draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification as this is >>> the only document in the cluster to actually specify Sub-Data Items. I >>> believe >>> the acknowledgment of Rick Taylor in >>> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension >>> is there for "hysterical raisins", i.e., as a left-over from the earliest >>> versions of this draft which included the Traffic Classification Data Item >>> and >>> its Sub-Data Items before these were moved elsewhere in version -05. See >>> also >>> the Acknowledgment section of RFC 8651. (As an aside: I don't like "Sub-Data >>> Item" as a term. I would have preferred "Data Item Sub-item" or perhaps >>> "Data >>> Sub-item" or "Data Item Sub-TLV". It is way too late to make any such >>> change, >>> however, because RFC 8651 has set a precedent). >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Ronald >> >> >>> On Nov 17, 2025, at 2:50 PM, Donald Eastlake <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> 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://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9892.html >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893.html >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9894.html >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895.html >>>> (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://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C541 >>>> >>>> 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://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/#missingauthor are acceptable.) >>>> >>>> 2) FYI - We updated "DiffServ" to "Diffserv" throughout the cluster >>>> per https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=terms. If no >>>> objections, we will ask IANA to update the following descriptions >>>> prior to publication. >>> >>>> Link to registry group: https://www.iana.org/assignments/dlep-parameters >>>> >>>> "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]
