Looks good to me too - thank you! Lou ---------- On November 25, 2025 1:36:45 PM Lynne Bartholomew <[email protected]> wrote:
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]
