Hi, Donald. Thank you for the quick reply! We have updated accordingly. 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 Thanks again! Lynne Bartholomew RFC Production Center > On Dec 3, 2025, at 9:52 AM, Donald Eastlake <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 11:48 AM Lynne Bartholomew > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Dear authors, >> >> The authors of companion document RFC-to-be 9893 have changed 'logical >> "Credit Window(s)"' to 'logical "credit window(s)"', because they went with >> lowercase "credit window(s)" where this term is used generally. >> >> For consistency within this group of DLEP documents, may we change 'logical >> "Credit Windows"' to 'logical "credit windows"' in this document as well? > > I am OK with changing to lowercase. > > Thanks, > Donald > =============================== > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA > [email protected] > >> Currently: >> ... Flow control is provided using one or more logical "Credit Windows", >> >> Thank you! >> >> Lynne Bartholomew >> RFC Production Center >> >>> On Nov 26, 2025, at 12:52 PM, Lynne Bartholomew >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, Lou. >>> >>> We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page: >>> >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9894 >>> >>> Thank you very much! If you'll be celebrating the long weekend, we hope >>> you have a good one! >>> >>> Lynne Bartholomew >>> RFC Production Center >>> >>>> On Nov 26, 2025, at 9:05 AM, Lou Berger <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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]
