Hi, Donald.

We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page:

   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9894

Thank you very much for your help with this document!

Lynne Bartholomew
RFC Production Center

> On Nov 25, 2025, at 9:55 AM, Donald Eastlake <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Lynne,
> 
> I have reviewed this rfc-to-be and approve publication.
> 
> Thanks,
> Donald
> ===============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
>  2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
>  [email protected]
> 
> 
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 12:15 PM Lynne Bartholomew 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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]
  • [auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-t... RFC Editor via auth48archive
    • [auth48] Re: AUTH48: ... Donald Eastlake via auth48archive
      • [auth48] Re: AUTH... Lynne Bartholomew via auth48archive
        • [auth48] Re: ... Lynne Bartholomew via auth48archive
          • [auth48] ... Donald Eastlake via auth48archive
            • [aut... Lynne Bartholomew via auth48archive
              • ... Lou Berger via auth48archive
                • ... Lynne Bartholomew via auth48archive
                • ... Lynne Bartholomew via auth48archive
                • ... Donald Eastlake via auth48archive
                • ... Lynne Bartholomew via auth48archive
                • ... Lynne Bartholomew via auth48archive
                • ... Lynne Bartholomew via auth48archive
                • ... Cheng, Bow-Nan - 0662 - MITLL via auth48archive
                • ... Lynne Bartholomew via auth48archive
                • ... Lynne Bartholomew via auth48archive

Reply via email to