Hi, Jim. Great! So noted: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9892
Thanks as always for the quick reply! Lynne Bartholomew RFC Production Center > On Dec 10, 2025, at 3:05 AM, James Guichard <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Approved. > > From: Lynne Bartholomew <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, December 9, 2025 at 7:09 PM > To: Lou Berger <[email protected]>, Don Fedyk <[email protected]>, James > Guichard <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, > [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[email protected]> > Subject: *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9892 > <draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-17> for your review > > Hi, Lou, Don, and *Jim. > > Lou, we've updated this document per your note below. > > *Jim, please review the latest update to the text under "Length:" in Section > 2.2, and let us know if you approve. > > The latest files are posted here. Please refresh your browser: > > > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892.txt&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221547188074%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=j5C3SuNSoD5b%2BLpM8vXuN8werK3ULuNv0ZPpAjtVaDI%3D&reserved=0 > > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892.pdf&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221547220667%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pMJkxpKANAu22tAeVNRm1Ycz445vGe3%2F%2B%2BLIChG%2FXrc%3D&reserved=0 > > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221547244506%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PeI6KuVYL%2FCviddw65lMIRR%2BFEYvQaHJU2qCdRxm5Qo%3D&reserved=0 > > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892.xml&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221547267493%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=7nmZmN7OrB%2BP85clp22DpbTZg%2FvBFSNSSSMa08S0xSU%3D&reserved=0 > > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-diff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221547298584%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dug3c90LgRiSZfPvRThAh7dD5ZXrXdqHjritRCsQ82s%3D&reserved=0 > > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221547328633%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ef7FOfJyfl8f7TcxKUO73%2BdO2E1BMks1FpLJFoFj7%2BM%3D&reserved=0 > (side by side) > > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-auth48diff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221547352340%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NBl10bOii01aqub3Rbga6AGo1Wngejthymf2Y8k2Y1c%3D&reserved=0 > > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-auth48rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221547372920%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=kTYWWbZTydCQdIwzW1d1aRqfNYi7NKjnhPTKnRObXbw%3D&reserved=0 > (side by side) > > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-lastdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221547391952%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wV7URB4a3RnRoS0ZqoQjKqnEuaRc8ji5yZHO8mYh%2B4g%3D&reserved=0 > > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-lastrfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221547415418%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6zkv0CbMY6eyK8trUQ%2BzknA4yk9Ps46mY3LYTKlfZek%3D&reserved=0 > (side by side) > > > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-xmldiff1.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221547433001%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TB8u7paCMWj4YUdyuYwvjmJcZlshu64dO28s6kKfW20%3D&reserved=0 > > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-xmldiff2.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221547451601%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=mCky4gTtwr05l%2BKy2ShRlJTdTuWfbXiRrEpr5eDL9d4%3D&reserved=0 > > Thank you! > > Lynne Bartholomew > RFC Production Center > > > On Dec 9, 2025, at 7:09 AM, Don Fedyk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > I agree with Lou the maximum value is the Length of single sub data item - > > one FID makes more sense. > > > > Don > > > On Dec 8, 2025, at 3:26 PM, Lou Berger <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > I believe I see an error in > > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892.txt&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221547467920%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=aLgZryUWYozzvb45egHKQAj3hNYoV4IO71EX5hjdtNU%3D&reserved=0 > > In the following. The total provide is for the data item not the sub-data > > item length. > > > > Length: > > Variable > > > > Length is defined above. For this Sub-Data Item, it is equal to > > three (3) octets plus the value of the Num DSCPs field. This > > means that the maximum Length based on a single DSCP per FID for > > this TLV could be 64 times two (FID) plus one for (Num DSCPs) plus > > one octet for a single DSCP or 256 octets. The definition can be > > in multiple Sub-Data Items that are much smaller than this. > > > > > > OLD > > This > > means that the maximum Length based on a single DSCP per FID for > > this TLV could be 64 times two (FID) plus one for (Num DSCPs) plus > > one octet for a single DSCP or 256 octets. > > NEW > > This > > means that the maximum Length value is 3 + 64 or 67 octets. > > Thanks, > > Lou > > > > On 12/8/2025 1:18 PM, Lynne Bartholomew wrote: > >> Dear Don, Bow-Nan, and Lou. > >> > >> Checking in with you regarding the status of this document. Please let us > >> know whether further updates are needed or you approve this document for > >> publication in its current form. > >> > >> Don, we still have one more question for you; apologies for missing this > >> one earlier. Should the following be made consistent? > >> > >> across the Data Item and not the individual Sub-Data Item / > >> across the Data Item and not the individual Sub-Data Items > >> > >> The latest files are posted here. Please refresh your browser: > >> > >> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892.txt&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221547489245%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=EowqvMLhfFfotQYHBKTGasUoCtl1xdGZqv5kaF5pHHc%3D&reserved=0 > >> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892.pdf&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221547508953%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=EgfqBRlYW6j%2FwxwBE%2F0VEGANkHpfAQoguarxRWDk3w8%3D&reserved=0 > >> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221547527482%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ADWWGTWot%2BOkXweAvLXk%2Fvl1yhQO6KreBu83JuT4ESc%3D&reserved=0 > >> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892.xml&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221547550749%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6U1xABYbjuDbf7GpGFmXmsH%2F%2Fdhhm%2FnKMUlBNTbzndc%3D&reserved=0 > >> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-diff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221547573701%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=7JZX%2BOnuuUagWiebNvxvym7fZlhxENHnOhmsAzPQN54%3D&reserved=0 > >> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221547594487%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TlGdkvisL1rQtkIbWGhtlLeI2H1zx74M%2ByESP9Jyrdk%3D&reserved=0 > >> (side by side) > >> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-auth48diff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221547613465%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=spOgQPowN9awBhg6cqDQM6nHCUe83z%2BVDDL6ysaPgAg%3D&reserved=0 > >> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-auth48rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221547637217%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=XBee1uXI4MABT0OWkBuaTKP1DxJSw85b%2FjVmaATCpnc%3D&reserved=0 > >> (side by side) > >> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-lastdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221547663653%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=R%2BqlLXBXcmTDsxYiUwctDTZ4fIqv0HRtA%2FXKGfxbFfA%3D&reserved=0 > >> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-lastrfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221547687940%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=SKd86nwucaPibDwolLHmXuUAeBj8OAjxpTKgZNljBr0%3D&reserved=0 > >> (side by side) > >> > >> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-xmldiff1.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221547710303%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=E6bTJhlQ40SyC5aLTK5DqSbCLdKS7%2Fzbcgzuz4EeLdw%3D&reserved=0 > >> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-xmldiff2.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221547732412%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Y9z%2F2GnJ5Gwtqo6HjDsiR9kGyGwhqyjyn3HTlNb%2FfYI%3D&reserved=0 > >> > >> The AUTH48 status page is here: > >> > >> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9892&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221547751701%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Yzf%2BUZVXVyJ093cTnM%2F5FeP8CETcvZlUo2XZwRz9miI%3D&reserved=0 > >> > >> Thank you! > >> > >> Lynne Bartholomew > >> RFC Production Center > >> > >> > >>> On Dec 2, 2025, at 1:26 PM, Lynne Bartholomew > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, Jim. So noted: > >>> > >>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9892&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221547770384%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=YpRLs%2FQPLe4Uydrsd2RjnzXLR%2FkTo%2BXwE%2FA4cSG86w8%3D&reserved=0 > >>> > >>> Thank you! > >>> > >>> Lynne Bartholomew > >>> RFC Production Center > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Dec 2, 2025, at 9:07 AM, James Guichard > >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Update looks okay for me. Approved. > >>>> > >>>> Jim > >>>> > >>>> Get Outlook for iOS > >>>> From: Lynne Bartholomew <[email protected]> > >>>> Sent: Monday, December 1, 2025 3:18:51 PM > >>>> To: Don Fedyk <[email protected]>; James Guichard > >>>> <[email protected]> > >>>> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Lou Berger > >>>> <[email protected]>; [email protected] > >>>> <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; > >>>> [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] > >>>> <[email protected]>; [email protected] > >>>> <[email protected]> > >>>> Subject: *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9892 > >>>> <draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-17> for your review Hi, > >>>> Don and *AD (Jim). > >>>> > >>>> * Jim, please review the updates to the "VLAN Identifier (VID):" > >>>> paragraph in Section 2.3, and let us know if you approve. We ask for > >>>> your approval because the updates could be considered "beyond editorial". > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Don, no worries, and we hope that you had a good holiday weekend. > >>>> > >>>> We have made further updates to this document per your notes below, but > >>>> we still have one more question for you; apologies for missing this one > >>>> earlier. Should the following be made consistent? > >>>> > >>>> across the Data Item and not the individual Sub-Data Item / > >>>> across the Data Item and not the individual Sub-Data Items > >>>> > >>>> The latest files are posted here. Please refresh your browser: > >>>> > >>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892.txt&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221547790540%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qwVpfTQt8Ik0BLe%2B%2BewWRtMYsOIE0EJKq9w0r9KkQkI%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892.pdf&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221547811647%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3lUHCnBA8AF4koEnHbdTIC9FC8ebCijKSAx%2BoojWilw%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221547832348%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wyCuXiF4gVLxCburX3ZhDA5Hyt%2Bu1BWgPrZVUfFS0tA%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892.xml&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221547852141%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FsUMN4f6g2bpz1YBEyIu7kjDJM6%2Fz5RReKgkLPQnQlU%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-diff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221547877676%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ZXg0wjn9jvwURTg3Uud1Gq4qUqS0JJL72FXYFGkE%2BRQ%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221547897038%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=m54vVybIpLq5b6hoySq%2Ft%2FXO4NHsLjVVTPcwI7X2V9M%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> (side by side) > >>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-auth48diff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221548392474%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=kfbSzPQa0hZDkfsYClkX0d8ajtuUfvaJX%2BAvC52E4Vk%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-auth48rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221548426921%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6SlnMcucsB%2FsVvlYnulDi15G4uZAmaTyARy0nuTY8l0%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> (side by side) > >>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-lastdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221548463794%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fZfei1fXO9M%2Frmc6Q5%2FyGwXbCyrk2CoGkO0RY7vqPec%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-lastrfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221548494665%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Djt7e2ncVDLRoelTxxgZt4GFTz1NAtQ%2FbHrGmauOYec%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> (side by side) > >>>> > >>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-xmldiff1.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221548515676%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=kUg%2Fmsx6CICtkG3TpXST4o9MfNoMnN8AIqc2g8DYKEE%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-xmldiff2.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221548537112%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=mUCYdNHx6QHcBQeqypV1dXPREn5z53S7bBAR2uFlncE%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> > >>>> Thank you! > >>>> > >>>> Lynne Bartholomew > >>>> RFC Production Center > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On Dec 1, 2025, at 9:23 AM, Don Fedyk <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Lynn > >>>>> > >>>>> Sorry for the delay, short work week last week. > >>>>> > >>>>> Inline [Don] > >>>>> > >>>>> Thank You, > >>>>> Don > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> From: Lynne Bartholomew <[email protected]> > >>>>> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2025 12:46 PM > >>>>> To: Don Fedyk <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; > >>>>> Lou Berger <[email protected]> > >>>>> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; > >>>>> [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] > >>>>> <[email protected]>; [email protected]<[email protected]>; > >>>>> [email protected] <[email protected]>; > >>>>> [email protected] <[email protected]> > >>>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9892 > >>>>> <draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-17> for your review > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi, Don, Bow-Nan, and Lou. > >>>>> > >>>>> Don, thank you for your reply. > >>>>> > >>>>> Regarding this reply from you: We changed "the maximum Length for the > >>>>> based on" to "the maximum Length based on". Please let us know if some > >>>>> other words were missing that should be added. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> [Don] I believe - checking my math again that this length is on a per > >>>>>> Traiffic Identifier basis. > >>>>>> If every FID was mapped to an explicit DSCP the length would be > >>>>>> (2+1+1) * 64 = 256. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> NEW "under DiffServ Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item" > >>>>>> This > >>>>>> means that the maximum Length for the based on a single DSCP per FID > >>>>>> for this TLV > >>>>>> could be 64 times two ( FID) plus one for (Num DSCPs) plus one octet > >>>>>> for a single DSCP > >>>>>> or 256 octets. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> " Think the error was using 3 instead of 2 and resulting in counting > >>>>>> the Num DSCPs twice" > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Regarding our question 18)b) and your reply: > >>>>> > >>>>> Which form is preferred for consistency in this document -- priority > >>>>> field, Priority field, or Priority Field? > >>>>> > >>>>> [Don] Priority Field > >>>>> > >>>>> Same question for these two; which form is preferred? > >>>>> > >>>>> Item Types / Item types > >>>>> > >>>>> Item Types (used in RFC 8175) > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Num PCPs (1 instance) / NumPCPs (4 instances) > >>>>> > >>>>> [Don] Ahh, Ascii Art limited us to NumPCPs I would use that everywhere > >>>>> to make it consistent. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> b) The following terms appear to be used inconsistently in this > >>>>>>>>> document. Please let us know which form is preferred. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> priority field / Priority field / Priority Field > >>>>>>>>> (e.g., "priority fields", "Priority fields", > >>>>>>>>> "Each Priority Field is", "each Priority field is") > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Item Types / Item types (e.g., "Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item > >>>>>>>>> Types", "Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item types") > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Num PCPs (1 instance) / NumPCPs (4 instances) > >>>>>>>>> (We also see "Num DSCPs" and "Num SDIs".) > >>>>>>>>> the individual Sub-Data Item / the individual Sub-Data Items --> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [Don] Good Thanks. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> = = = = = > >>>>> > >>>>> Would you like to make this update, mentioned by Donald Eastlake in > >>>>> relation to RFC-to-be 9895? Please read his entire reply (i.e., that > >>>>> nothing is wrong but that consistency might be good). > >>>>> > >>>>> [Don] The VID in this douement is 12bits. The largest it can be is > >>>>> 0xFFE. Therefore the value of 0x000 would be the corresponing > >>>>> representation but not used much. I don't see a problem with zero(0) in > >>>>> this case but when I maeked up up I guess 0x000 is more consistent.. As > >>>>> far as the reserved values those are inherited from IEEE 802.1Q. > >>>>> See mark up below. [Don] > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Our question for Donald: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>> 2. In companion document RFC-to-be 9892, should we ask the authors > >>>>>>> if the "zero (0)" in the following paragraph should be updated to > >>>>>>> list the hex value 0x0000, as was done per your second update note > >>>>>>> (further below) for this document? We ask because we see two > >>>>>>> instances of "The value 0xFFFF is reserved" in RFC-to-be 9892: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> VLAN Identifier (VID): > >>>>>>> A 12-bit unsigned integer field indicating the VLAN to be used in > >>>>>>> traffic classification. A value of zero (0) indicates that the > >>>>>>> VID is to be ignored and any VID is to be accepted during traffic > >>>>>>> classification. Any explicitly mapped VLANs are matched first. > >>>>>>> Any VLANs that do not have a mapping will then map to this default > >>>>>>> mapping. > >>>>>>> > >>>>> Donald's reply: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Well, I don't think the two occurrences of 0xFFFF in this document > >>>>>> have anything to do with this because they refer to the FID, not the > >>>>>> VID. However, I think the full change to this text that I suggested > >>>>>> for this (except the self-referential reference to 9892) would be good > >>>>>> so > >>>>>> > >>>>>> OLD > >>>>>> A value of zero (0) indicates that the > >>>>>> VID is to be ignored and any VID is to be accepted during traffic > >>>>>> classification. > >>>>>> NEW > >>>>>> VID value zero (0x0000) is used > >>>>>> to indicate that the VID is ignored and VID 0xFFFF is > >>>>>> reserved. Any other VID value from 0x0001 through 0xFFFE can be > >>>>>> used in traffic classification. > >>>>>> > >>>>> [Don] > >>>>> NEW > >>>>> > >>>>>> VID value zero (0x000) is used > >>>>>> to indicate that the VID is ignored and VID 0xFFF is reserved. > >>>>>> Any other VID value from 0x001 through 0xFFE can be > >>>>>> used in traffic classification. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Perhaps you should suggest the above to the authors. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Actually, use of "(0)" is not wrong, it's just that it seems much more > >>>>>> consistent for all the VIDs (VLAN IDs) to be given in the same hex > >>>>>> format. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> = = = = = > >>>>> > >>>>> The latest files are posted here. Please refresh your browser: > >>>>> > >>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892.txt&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221548558194%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=01qsyOrcX1MVSUCRunZlxq%2Fk3UJxWcJLy9dH1q3lsIc%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892.pdf&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221548578356%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ujdghIgHFkgmzD9Ry39jRI9wYtWja6cTWHaB1J2QtEY%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221548597513%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bZGNz2qrVdVb0a5L8PMMCabiK0DN6FcM3bb8MuVoU%2Fw%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892.xml&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221548614289%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NOtaXhKh0dK%2FDwma%2FzVkZ9EMfzscada5%2FrZx2OYube0%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-diff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221548632739%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=BSzGSd3qrPCebx1agK8cEvhqoQKWjYKCzmjGpYs%2BprI%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221548652834%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ySP%2FjMi%2FCU8tW87tC88N4c3349oGEE8doulVb8Y3MdA%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>> (side by side) > >>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-auth48diff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221548671268%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xXlwHgENKFKuIk5KMDrWbtFp4dcynVAWkPBi%2FGM4fXA%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-auth48rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221548692716%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=AvYTW%2Bbpst%2Fu7jBIYL2VDFh3QpLgcbWd%2Bm3iKLd8pWo%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>> (side by side) > >>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-lastdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221548715116%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=DJ6lztNadGpRhwt7gaOU9RdkC%2FEf9AbXocZ2YWH7AHg%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-lastrfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221548741112%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xLzZXXfzmRgHn5rtWamIfe2k%2FYUJfqC9xw9K5%2B2qTFQ%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>> (side by side) > >>>>> > >>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-xmldiff1.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221548765388%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xeA%2FMLU1kseX1oi9sLUm8OyJARZR6hxmnOCDMVhPNVc%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-xmldiff2.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221548785463%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Fa8%2BuwzmBoPvRfS5RIV2qsb4fsRF6EoA1A498SXcZnU%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks again! > >>>>> > >>>>> Lynne Bartholomew > >>>>> RFC Production Center > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Nov 20, 2025, at 4:03 PM, Don Fedyk <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Lynn > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thank you, sorry, some of those additions came about because of > >>>>>> comments on how large the data items could. The important thing was to > >>>>>> make sure the object was reasonably bouunded but I think I have > >>>>>> corrected it below. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Inline [Don] > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> From: Lynne Bartholomew <[email protected]> > >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2025 12:03 PM > >>>>>> To: Don Fedyk <[email protected]> > >>>>>> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; > >>>>>> [email protected] <[email protected]>; Lou Berger <[email protected]>; > >>>>>> [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] > >>>>>> <[email protected]>; [email protected] > >>>>>> <[email protected]>;[email protected]<[email protected]>; > >>>>>> [email protected] <[email protected]> > >>>>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9892 > >>>>>> <draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-17> for your review > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi, Don. Thank you for your prompt reply! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We have updated this document per your notes below. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We have a few follow-up items for you: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> * Apologies; in looking at our question 8) more closely, we see > >>>>>> "maximum Length base on" and wonder if "base on" should be "based on". > >>>>>> We also wonder if "Num DSCPs plus one DSCPs" should be "(Num DSCPs > >>>>>> plus one)" (as in showing an addition). Should we update per our > >>>>>> "Possibly" text, or could you provide a better way to write this > >>>>>> sentence? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Section 2.2: Please clarify "one DSCPs". There > >>>>>>>> appears > >>>>>>>> to be a singular-versus-plural issue (i.e., perhaps either "one DSCP" > >>>>>>>> or "one or more DSCPs" would be correct here). > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Original: > >>>>>>>> This > >>>>>>>> means that the maximum Length base on a FID per DSCP for this TLV > >>>>>>>> could be 64 times 3 plus one for Num DSCPs plus one DSCPs or 320 > >>>>>>>> octets. --> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [Don] Should be "one DSCP". > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Currently: > >>>>>> This > >>>>>> means that the maximum Length base on a FID per DSCP for this TLV > >>>>>> could be 64 times 3 plus one for Num DSCPs plus one DSCPs or 320 > >>>>>> octets. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Possibly: > >>>>>> This > >>>>>> means that the maximum Length based on a FID per DSCP for this TLV > >>>>>> could be 64 times 3 plus one for (Num DSCPs plus one) octets, or 320 > >>>>>> octets. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> [Don] I believe - checking my math again that this length is on a per > >>>>>> Traiffic Identifier basis. > >>>>>> If every FID was mapped to an explicit DSCP the length would be > >>>>>> (2+1+1) * 64 = 256. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> NEW "under DiffServ Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item" > >>>>>> This > >>>>>> means that the maximum Length for the based on a single DSCP per FID > >>>>>> for this TLV > >>>>>> could be 64 times two ( FID) plus one for (Num DSCPs) plus one octet > >>>>>> for a single DSCP > >>>>>> or 256 octets. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> " Think the error was using 3 instead of 2 and resulting in counting > >>>>>> the Num DSCPs twice" > >>>>>> > >>>>>> = = = = = > >>>>>> > >>>>>> * Regarding our question 11) and your reply: We updated per your note, > >>>>>> except that > >>>>>> we changed "number octets" to "number of octets". If this is > >>>>>> incorrect, should > >>>>>> "number octets" be clarified? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 11) <!-- [rfced] Section 2.3: We had trouble following these > >>>>>>>> sentences. > >>>>>>>> Does "the next higher integer quantity" refer to a higher integer > >>>>>>>> quantity that comes next, or does it mean "the next-higher integer > >>>>>>>> quantity" or "the next-highest integer quantity"? In the equation, > >>>>>>>> does "divided by 2 or 16 octets" mean "divided by either 2 octets or > >>>>>>>> 16 octets", or something else? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Original: > >>>>>>>> Note > >>>>>>>> that as length is in octets and each Priority field is 4 bits, the > >>>>>>>> additional length is the value carried in the NumPCPs field > >>>>>>>> divided by two and rounded up to the next higher integer quantity. > >>>>>>>> This TLV has maximum length of 4 plus 8 divided by 2 or 16 octets. > >>>>>>>> --> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [Don] I think that is bad math. Sorry. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> NEW > >>>>>>> that as length is in octets and each Priority field is 4 bits, the > >>>>>>> total length of this Sub-Data Item is the 2 octets > >>>>>>> of Flow Identifer, plus the 2 octets for NumPCPs and VLAN Identifier > >>>>>>> plus the number octets for Priority Code Points. The number of > >>>>>>> octets for the PCPs is computed by rounding up the NumPCPs > >>>>>>> to the nearest even value and dividing by 2. > >>>>>>> This TLV has maximum length of 4 plus 8 divided by 2 or 8 octets. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Currently: > >>>>>> Note > >>>>>> that as the length is in octets and each Priority field is 4 bits, > >>>>>> the total length of this Sub-Data Item is the 2 octets of Flow > >>>>>> Identifier, plus the 2 octets for NumPCPs and VLAN Identifier plus > >>>>>> the number of octets for PCPs. The number of octets for the PCPs > >>>>>> is computed by rounding up NumPCPs to the nearest even value and > >>>>>> dividing by 2. This TLV has maximum length of 4 plus 8 divided by > >>>>>> 2 or 8 octets. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> [Don] Yes thanks. > >>>>>> = = = = = > >>>>>> > >>>>>> * Regarding our question 15) and your reply: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 15) <!-- [rfced] Section 4: We had trouble following "some updated > >>>>>>>> references to external documents listed below" in this paragraph. > >>>>>>>> It appears that "external documents" is intended to refer to > >>>>>>>> [BCP195], [IEEE-802.1AE], and [IEEE-8802-1X]. > >>>>>>>> However, we see that [RFC8175] cites [IEEE-802.1X] ("IEEE Standards > >>>>>>>> for Local and metropolitan area networks-Port-Based Network Access > >>>>>>>> Control"), but this document cites [IEEE-8802-1X] ("IEEE/ISO/IEC > >>>>>>>> International Standard-Telecommunications and exchange between > >>>>>>>> information technology systems-Requirements for local and > >>>>>>>> metropolitan area networks-Part 1X:Port-based network access > >>>>>>>> control"). > >>>>>>>> May we update as suggested? If not, please clarify the text. > >>>>>>>> Original: > >>>>>>>> The transport layer security mechanisms documented in [RFC8175], with > >>>>>>>> some updated references to external documents listed below, can be > >>>>>>>> applied to this document. > >>>>>>>> Suggested: > >>>>>>>> The transport layer security mechanisms documented in [RFC8175], > >>>>>>>> along with the latest versions of [BCP195], [IEEE-802.1AE], and > >>>>>>>> [IEEE-8802-1X] at the time of this writing, can be applied to this > >>>>>>>> document. --> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [Don] Yes accepted Suggested but the IEEE-8802-1X is the ISO version > >>>>>>> of IEEE-802.1X > >>>>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fdocument%2F9650828&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221548806548%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xFbXdO8t6IiCQe01K2WD0qu2wxSsj8lnkmd9oGGVRRs%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I think we should use the IEEE version change IEEE-8802-1X to > >>>>>>> IEEE-802.1X. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> [Don] The practice is IEEE publishes IEEE802.1X for example, then ISO > >>>>>> republishes it so it is the same document mostly. > >>>>>> However we usually refer to the IEEE base document and did that for > >>>>>> IEEE 802.1Q. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I thought pasted the corrected URL for Original IEEE spec but maybe I > >>>>>> goofed. Here it is again. IEEE 802.1X-2020 > >>>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fdocument%2F9018454&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221548828523%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=MAvSZzHWZ%2FHOm3cU7%2FVK6EJszMvQ3ToDdsEZMqua0ZE%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Apologies for our confusion: When we go to > >>>>>> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fdocument%2F9650828&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221548847932%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NNV2ofxcDilOFk9bRqPPPJ20PP%2BEE6ZxOXRmesezs9Q%3D&reserved=0>, > >>>>>> we see "8802-1X-2021 - IEEE/ISO/IEC International > >>>>>> Standard-Telecommunications and exchange > >>>>>> between information technology systems--Requirements for local and > >>>>>> metropolitan area > >>>>>> networks--Part 1X:Port-based network access control". > >>>>>> Is > >>>>>> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fdocument%2F9650828&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221548869359%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4UR9vjqBjO5cnxaz9LqDAInDHF6VxrkQKhvMEmCzsV4%3D&reserved=0> > >>>>>> the wrong URL? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We changed the citation string per your note but would like to confirm > >>>>>> that this update > >>>>>> won't be confusing to readers. We also ask because RFC-to-be 9893 > >>>>>> cites IEEE 8802-1X > >>>>>> and uses the citation string "[IEEE-8802-1X]". > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Currently: > >>>>>> [IEEE-802.1X] > >>>>>> IEEE, "8802-1X-2021 - IEEE/ISO/IEC International Standard- > >>>>>> Telecommunications and exchange between information > >>>>>> technology systems--Requirements for local and > >>>>>> metropolitan area networks--Part 1X:Port-based network > >>>>>> access control", DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2021.9650828, IEEE > >>>>>> Std IEEE-802.1X-2021, December 2021, > >>>>>> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fdocument%2F9650828&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221548889008%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=zKxa6vPGYNGRiLTQZ7asE6kLuI0c8MCF1EUFcKeQXYQ%3D&reserved=0>. > >>>>>> [DON] use > >>>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fdocument%2F9018454&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221548908049%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lMkIDb3uCuYDU1BIF1%2FN9BttG9K7%2FX9YBcodK082a5c%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>>> = = = = = > >>>>>> > >>>>>> * Regarding our question 18)b) and your reply -- please let us know > >>>>>> which form is > >>>>>> preferred for the following three items: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> b) The following terms appear to be used inconsistently in this > >>>>>>>> document. Please let us know which form is preferred. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> priority field / Priority field / Priority Field > >>>>>>>> (e.g., "priority fields", "Priority fields", > >>>>>>>> "Each Priority Field is", "each Priority field is") > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Item Types / Item types (e.g., "Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item > >>>>>>>> Types", "Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item types") > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Num PCPs (1 instance) / NumPCPs (4 instances) > >>>>>>>> (We also see "Num DSCPs" and "Num SDIs".) > >>>>>>>> the individual Sub-Data Item / the individual Sub-Data Items --> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [Don] Good Thanks. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> = = = = = > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The latest files are posted here. Please refresh your browser: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892.txt&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221548931496%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0QzcHiN%2FIo2n4upZPAICvcgq6pU41Ll4AAJYl%2Bu5Hf8%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892.pdf&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221548957623%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8i%2FUsVtqYHeJUjX9r3HxGCOEoVVK%2FhoVwqIK06WHcmc%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221548981171%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=tPA48csaSs0vBaCOfGIbJQW5SoLDJ%2BBSsm2UkbsnKJU%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892.xml&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221549004946%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0FOxgwAIDrLByvSKOns4%2FxrqqnGSSTdk142OyKOgeR4%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-diff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221549029431%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=OK1JUjF9ysseGxaOFc27zEy9n7bPxicj%2BMRGubxMLNI%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221549049368%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3psBGOFXAUmK321EkoRMJfptzPhXF8av5MunTXVccCM%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>>> (side by side) > >>>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-auth48diff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221549069125%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=7bMS8rD%2FEJCbvgIx0vdFOZrSjzcmIyiR1%2BFtpc9ZcE8%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-auth48rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221549092081%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=r1U9h1lnwO1u%2FemdXmvQ4JZsO3tpoxAX%2Be8yiR5D954%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>>> (side by side) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-xmldiff1.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221549118151%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=e%2F0QjuA0y15c%2BqCgv1T4fuJeBijGZzdNWGt%2BSKxaVyE%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-xmldiff2.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221549144391%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yuswQOOIUFs4gFUpEF8gbmf4NF6zm5XfetkKwvGa6HY%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks again! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Lynne Bartholomew > >>>>>> RFC Production Center > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Nov 18, 2025, at 6:24 AM, Don Fedyk <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks My comments inline [Don]. Please let me know if anything is > >>>>>>> not clear. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thank you > >>>>>>> Don > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > >>>>>>> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2025 4:57 PM > >>>>>>> To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Lou Berger > >>>>>>> <[email protected]>; Don Fedyk <[email protected]> > >>>>>>> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; > >>>>>>> [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] > >>>>>>> <[email protected]>; [email protected] > >>>>>>> <[email protected]>; > >>>>>>> [email protected]<[email protected]>;[email protected] > >>>>>>> <[email protected]> > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9892 > >>>>>>> <draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-17> for your review > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Authors, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as > >>>>>>> necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear > >>>>>>> in the > >>>>>>> title) for use on > >>>>>>> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fsearch&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221549165664%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Ao1CNv0Pvl0pLfko%2F%2Ff%2FFhgPEVj69h5gXhv1wjnabWE%3D&reserved=0>. > >>>>>>> --> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Diffserv Code Points > >>>>>>> Ethernet Priority Code Points. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Section 1: We had trouble following the "and", "or", > >>>>>>> and > >>>>>>> "and/or" relationships in this sentence. If the suggested text is not > >>>>>>> correct, please clarify. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Original: > >>>>>>> The defined mechanism allows > >>>>>>> for flows to be described in a flexible fashion and when combined > >>>>>>> with applications such as credit window control, allows credit > >>>>>>> windows to be shared across traffic sent to multiple DLEP > >>>>>>> destinations and as part of multiple flows, or used exclusively for > >>>>>>> traffic sent to a particular destination and/or belonging to a > >>>>>>> particular flow. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Suggested: > >>>>>>> The defined mechanism allows > >>>>>>> for flows to be described in a flexible fashion and, when combined > >>>>>>> with applications such as credit window control, allows credit > >>>>>>> windows to be (1) shared across traffic sent to multiple DLEP > >>>>>>> destinations and as part of multiple flows or (2) used exclusively > >>>>>>> for traffic sent to a particular destination and/or belonging to a > >>>>>>> particular flow. --> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [Don] Ok. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 3) <!-- [rfced] Section 2: Does "based on IP protocol and" (which > >>>>>>> looks > >>>>>>> like "based on Internet Protocol protocol and") mean "based on IP > >>>>>>> protocol type and" or something else? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [Don]The IP transport layer protocol. (Examples: TCP, UDP etc.) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Original: > >>>>>>> Other types of flow identification, e.g., based on > >>>>>>> IP protocol and ports, may be defined in the future via new Sub-Data > >>>>>>> Items. --> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [Don] Suggested: NEW > >>>>>>> Other types of flow identification, e.g., based on > >>>>>>> IP transport layer protocol and ports, may be defined in the future > >>>>>>> via new Sub-Data > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] Sections 2.1 and 2.1.1: We do not see a Type field in > >>>>>>> RFC 8175, but we see a "Data Item Type" field. May we update as > >>>>>>> suggested (per Section 11.3 ("DLEP Generic Data Item") of RFC 8175), > >>>>>>> to distinguish this definition from the definitions of Length in > >>>>>>> Sections 11.1 ("DLEP Signal Header") and 11.2 ("DLEP Message Header") > >>>>>>> of RFC 8175, which do not mention excluding a "Type" field? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Original: > >>>>>>> Per [RFC8175] Length is the number of octets in the Data Item, > >>>>>>> excluding the Type and Length fields. > >>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>> Copying [RFC8175], Length is a 16-bit unsigned integer that is the > >>>>>>> number of octets in the Sub-Data Item, excluding the Type and > >>>>>>> Length fields. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Suggested: > >>>>>>> Per Section 11.3 of [RFC8175], Length is the number of octets in the > >>>>>>> Data Item, excluding the Data Item Type and Length fields. > >>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>> Per Section 11.3 of [RFC8175], Length is a 16-bit unsigned integer > >>>>>>> that is the number of octets in the Sub-Data Item, excluding the > >>>>>>> Data Item Type and Length fields. --> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [Don] > >>>>>>> Yes Data Item Type vs Type. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] Section 2.1: For ease of the reader, we changed > >>>>>>> "below" > >>>>>>> to "in Section 2.1.1". If this is incorrect, please clarify what > >>>>>>> "below" refers to. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Original: > >>>>>>> Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item: > >>>>>>> Zero or more Traffic Classification Sub-Data Items of the format > >>>>>>> defined below MAY be included. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Currently: > >>>>>>> Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item: > >>>>>>> Zero or more Traffic Classification Sub-Data Items of the format > >>>>>>> defined in Section 2.1.1 MAY be included. --> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [Don] Yes > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] Section 2.1.1: We had trouble following the meaning of > >>>>>>> "on a per Sub-Data Item Type". Are some words missing? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Original: > >>>>>>> The maximum length is limited on a per Sub-Data > >>>>>>> Item Type. --> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [Don] NEW > >>>>>>> Each Sub-Data Item has its own length field. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This is all that is needed. Each Sub-Data Item is subject > >>>>>>> to the maximum length of encompassing the Data Item. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 7) <!-- [rfced] Section 2.1.1: We see that the Value field is > >>>>>>> mentioned > >>>>>>> under "Sub-Data Item Type:" but is not otherwise defined. Would you > >>>>>>> like to add a list item and explanation of the Value field? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> For example, Section 11.3 of RFC 8175 provides this definition of the > >>>>>>> Value field: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Value: A field of <Length> octets that contains data specific to a > >>>>>>> particular Data Item. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [Don] Value is the same as defined in RFC 8175. > >>>>>>> Repeating this definition is fine. Value is only used for the general > >>>>>>> format. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Original: > >>>>>>> ~ Value... ~ > >>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>> Sub-Data Item Type: > >>>>>>> A 16-bit unsigned integer that indicates the type and > >>>>>>> corresponding format of the Sub-Data Item's Value field. ... --> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Section 2.2: Please clarify "one DSCPs". There appears > >>>>>>> to be a singular-versus-plural issue (i.e., perhaps either "one DSCP" > >>>>>>> or "one or more DSCPs" would be correct here). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Original: > >>>>>>> This > >>>>>>> means that the maximum Length base on a FID per DSCP for this TLV > >>>>>>> could be 64 times 3 plus one for Num DSCPs plus one DSCPs or 320 > >>>>>>> octets. --> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [Don] Should be "one DSCP". > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 9) <!-- [rfced] Section 2.2: Please confirm that there is no IANA > >>>>>>> registration > >>>>>>> associated with the value "0xFFFF" in this sentence. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Original: > >>>>>>> The value of 0xFFFF is reserved and MUST NOT be used in > >>>>>>> this field. > >>>>>>> --> > >>>>>>> [Don] Correct this is just a reserved Flow Identifier. No IANA > >>>>>>> registration. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 10) <!-- [rfced] Section 2.2: We changed "is an 8-bit that carries" to > >>>>>>> "is 8 bits long and carries". If this update is incorrect, please > >>>>>>> clarify the meaning of "an 8-bit that carries". > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Original: > >>>>>>> DS Field: > >>>>>>> Each DS Field is an 8-bit that carries the DSCP field defined in > >>>>>>> [RFC2474]. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Currently: > >>>>>>> DS Field: > >>>>>>> Each DS Field is 8 bits long and carries the DSCP field as > >>>>>>> defined in [RFC2474]. --> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [Don] Good "8 bits long" is better > >>>>>>> r > >>>>>>> 11) <!-- [rfced] Section 2.3: We had trouble following these > >>>>>>> sentences. > >>>>>>> Does "the next higher integer quantity" refer to a higher integer > >>>>>>> quantity that comes next, or does it mean "the next-higher integer > >>>>>>> quantity" or "the next-highest integer quantity"? In the equation, > >>>>>>> does "divided by 2 or 16 octets" mean "divided by either 2 octets or > >>>>>>> 16 octets", or something else? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Original: > >>>>>>> Note > >>>>>>> that as length is in octets and each Priority field is 4 bits, the > >>>>>>> additional length is the value carried in the NumPCPs field > >>>>>>> divided by two and rounded up to the next higher integer quantity. > >>>>>>> This TLV has maximum length of 4 plus 8 divided by 2 or 16 octets. --> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [Don] I think that is bad math. Sorry. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> NEW > >>>>>>> that as length is in octets and each Priority field is 4 bits, the > >>>>>>> total length of this Sub-Data Item is the 2 octets > >>>>>>> of Flow Identifer, plus the 2 octets for NumPCPs and VLAN Identifier > >>>>>>> plus the number octets for Priority Code Points. The number of > >>>>>>> octets for the PCPs is computed by rounding up the NumPCPs > >>>>>>> to the nearest even value and dividing by 2. > >>>>>>> This TLV has maximum length of 4 plus 8 divided by 2 or 8 octets. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 12) <!-- [rfced] Section 2.3: We changed "The maximum number of PCPs > >>>>>>> 8" > >>>>>>> to "The maximum number of PCPs is 8". If this is incorrect, please > >>>>>>> clarify the text. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Original: > >>>>>>> The maximum number of PCPs 8. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Currently: > >>>>>>> The maximum number of PCPs is 8. --> > >>>>>>> [Don] This is correct. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 13) <!-- [rfced] Section 2.3: Is "either PCP" correct here? Earlier > >>>>>>> text indicates > >>>>>>> that there can be up to 8 PCPs. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Original: > >>>>>>> Note that zero (0) is a valid value for either PCP. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Perhaps: > >>>>>>> Note that zero (0) is a valid value for PCP. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [Don] This is correct removing either. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 14) <!-- [rfced] We found the following two comments in the XML file. > >>>>>>> May we remove them? > >>>>>>> First comment: > >>>>>>> Both the router and the modem need to support this document, > >>>>>>> DLEP Traffic Classification, and DLEP Credit Flow Control, > >>>>>>> <xref target="I-D.ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control" > >>>>>>> format="default"/>. > >>>>>>> Second comment: > >>>>>>> This document requests the assignment of several values by IANA. All > >>>>>>> assignments are to registries defined by <xref target="RFC8175" > >>>>>>> format="default"/>. --> > >>>>>>> [Don] Yes please remove. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 15) <!-- [rfced] Section 4: We had trouble following "some updated > >>>>>>> references to external documents listed below" in this paragraph. > >>>>>>> It appears that "external documents" is intended to refer to > >>>>>>> [BCP195], [IEEE-802.1AE], and [IEEE-8802-1X]. > >>>>>>> However, we see that [RFC8175] cites [IEEE-802.1X] ("IEEE Standards > >>>>>>> for Local and metropolitan area networks-Port-Based Network Access > >>>>>>> Control"), but this document cites [IEEE-8802-1X] ("IEEE/ISO/IEC > >>>>>>> International Standard-Telecommunications and exchange between > >>>>>>> information technology systems-Requirements for local and > >>>>>>> metropolitan area networks-Part 1X:Port-based network access > >>>>>>> control"). > >>>>>>> May we update as suggested? If not, please clarify the text. > >>>>>>> Original: > >>>>>>> The transport layer security mechanisms documented in [RFC8175], with > >>>>>>> some updated references to external documents listed below, can be > >>>>>>> applied to this document. > >>>>>>> Suggested: > >>>>>>> The transport layer security mechanisms documented in [RFC8175], > >>>>>>> along with the latest versions of [BCP195], [IEEE-802.1AE], and > >>>>>>> [IEEE-8802-1X] at the time of this writing, can be applied to this > >>>>>>> document. --> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [Don] Yes accepted Suggested but the IEEE-8802-1X is the ISO version > >>>>>>> of IEEE-802.1X > >>>>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fdocument%2F9650828&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221549183693%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VMydMK%2F95%2Beu%2BTcB5iv%2FEdgItO6ZNQBvxSn8uhPxITI%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I think we should use the IEEE version change IEEE-8802-1X to > >>>>>>> IEEE-802.1X. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 16) <!-- [rfced] Below are some specific questions relating to IANA > >>>>>>> text in > >>>>>>> Section 5.2 of the document. > >>>>>>> a) FYI - To improve clarity, we added a new table (current Table 2) > >>>>>>> to show > >>>>>>> the registration policies and adjusted the original table (current > >>>>>>> Table 3) to > >>>>>>> show only the initial contents of the registry. > >>>>>>> [Don] Good. > >>>>>>> b) In the current Table 3, which shows the initial values of the new > >>>>>>> registry, > >>>>>>> [RFC2474] and [IEEE8021Q] are listed as references. Should this > >>>>>>> document be > >>>>>>> listed as a reference instead of or in addition to [RFC2474] and > >>>>>>> [IEEE8021Q]? > >>>>>>> It seems that this document defines the Diffserv Traffic > >>>>>>> Classification in > >>>>>>> Section 2.2 and the Ethernet Traffic Classification in Section 2.3. > >>>>>>> Please > >>>>>>> review and let us know if any updates are needed. If needed, we will > >>>>>>> ask IANA > >>>>>>> to update the "Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type Values" > >>>>>>> registry > >>>>>>> prior to publication. > >>>>>>> [Don] The table referencing [RFC2474] and [IEEE8021Q] is correct for > >>>>>>> Type code 1 and Type code 2 respectively. > >>>>>>> No need to add this document as reference - it is there for the whole > >>>>>>> table. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Link to registry: > >>>>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fdlep-parameters%2Fdlep-parameters.xhtml%23traffic-classification-sub-data-item-type-values&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221549200535%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PrTYLFI9W5U7xVhs8Cy13SJAba1K3jnWRcUQm3GOe30%3D&reserved=0> > >>>>>>> c) Related to the question above, the first two sentences below do not > >>>>>>> directly indicate that this document defines the two new Sub-Data > >>>>>>> Items in > >>>>>>> Sections 2.2 and 2.3, but the third sentence does. Should any of these > >>>>>>> sentences be updated? > >>>>>>> Original: > >>>>>>> This document also introduces DLEP Sub-Data Items, and Sub-Data Items > >>>>>>> are > >>>>>>> defined to support DiffServ and Ethernet traffic classification. > >>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>> This document defines support for traffic classification using a > >>>>>>> single new Data Item in Section 2.1 for general support and two new > >>>>>>> Sub-Data Items are defined to support identification of flows based > >>>>>>> on DSCPs and PCPs. > >>>>>>> [Don] This is good. > >>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>> This document defines traffic classification based on a DLEP > >>>>>>> destination and flows identified by either DiffServ [RFC2475] > >>>>>>> Differentiated Services Codepoints (DSCPs) or IEEE 802.1Q [IEEE8021Q] > >>>>>>> Ethernet Priority Code Points (PCPs). > >>>>>>> Perhaps (updates to first two sentences to indicate that this > >>>>>>> document defines > >>>>>>> the two Sub-Data Items; not changes to third sentence): > >>>>>>> This document also introduces DLEP Sub-Data Items and defines two new > >>>>>>> Sub-Data Items to support Diffserv and Ethernet traffic > >>>>>>> classification. > >>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>> This document defines support for traffic classification using a > >>>>>>> single new Data Item (see Section 2.1) for general support and > >>>>>>> defines two new > >>>>>>> Sub-Data Items to support identification of flows based > >>>>>>> on DSCPs and PCPs (see Sections 2.2 and 2.3). > >>>>>>> [Don] This is good. > >>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>> This document defines traffic classification based on a DLEP > >>>>>>> destination and flows identified by either Diffserv [RFC2475] > >>>>>>> Differentiated Services Codepoints (DSCPs) or IEEE 802.1Q [IEEE8021Q] > >>>>>>> Ethernet Priority Code Points (PCPs). > >>>>>>> d) May we combine the first paragraph after the current Table 3 and > >>>>>>> the last > >>>>>>> paragraph of Section 5.2 as follows? Also, would it be helpful to > >>>>>>> separate the > >>>>>>> text after the current Table 3 into a new section so future documents > >>>>>>> can > >>>>>>> easily refer to the guidance? Last, we suggest including > >>>>>>> "Specification Required" > >>>>>>> in this text as the guidance only applies to registrations with that > >>>>>>> policy. > >>>>>>> Original: > >>>>>>> This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers > >>>>>>> Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to the > >>>>>>> Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type Values registry for the > >>>>>>> DLEP protocol, in accordance with BCP 26 and [RFC8126]. > >>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>> To simplify future registrations, it is recommended that this > >>>>>>> guidance serves as a standard reference for all DLEP-related > >>>>>>> registries. Future specifications may include a header note pointing > >>>>>>> to this guidance document. > >>>>>>> Perhaps: > >>>>>>> 5.3. Registration Guidance > >>>>>>> This section provides guidance for registrations in the "Traffic > >>>>>>> Classification Sub-Data Item Type Values" registry. To simplify future > >>>>>>> registrations in DLEP-related registries, it is recommended that the > >>>>>>> guidance in this section apply to all registries within the "Dynamic > >>>>>>> Link > >>>>>>> Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Parameters" registry group that use the > >>>>>>> "Specification Required" policy [RFC8126]. Future specifications > >>>>>>> may point to the guidance in this document. > >>>>>>> [Don] This update is good. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> e) Please clarify "two specific registries" here. Is the intent "two > >>>>>>> specific > >>>>>>> entries" (i.e., 1 for Diffserv Traffic Classification and 2 for > >>>>>>> Ethernet > >>>>>>> Traffic Classification)? > >>>>>>> Original (the previous sentence included for context): > >>>>>>> This registry encompasses packet traffic classification, where > >>>>>>> standard packet header identifiers in packets or data frames indicate > >>>>>>> Quality of Service (QoS) treatment. It includes two specific > >>>>>>> registries for widely recognized identifiers used in QoS management > >>>>>>> for IP and Ethernet networks. > >>>>>>> Perhaps: > >>>>>>> This registry encompasses packet traffic classification, where > >>>>>>> standard packet header identifiers in packets or data frames indicate > >>>>>>> Quality of Service (QoS) treatment. It includes two specific > >>>>>>> entries for widely recognized identifiers used in QoS management > >>>>>>> for IP and Ethernet networks. > >>>>>>> [Don] This is good. > >>>>>>> --> > >>>>>>> 17) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the > >>>>>>> online Style Guide at > >>>>>>> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fstyleguide%2Fpart2%2F%23inclusive_language&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221549217330%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lyKFMWTAQDouXf%2BTJxmD8fAyDt%2BUmNVDqPwM8aeetqU%3D&reserved=0>, > >>>>>>> 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. --> > >>>>>>> 18) <!-- [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. > >>>>>>> data item (1 instance) / Data Item (e.g., "the data item", > >>>>>>> "the Data Item") (per the rest of this document and per this > >>>>>>> group (cluster) of documents) > >>>>>>> [Don] Good thanks. > >>>>>>> b) The following terms appear to be used inconsistently in this > >>>>>>> document. Please let us know which form is preferred. > >>>>>>> priority field / Priority field / Priority Field > >>>>>>> (e.g., "priority fields", "Priority fields", > >>>>>>> "Each Priority Field is", "each Priority field is") > >>>>>>> Item Types / Item types (e.g., "Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item > >>>>>>> Types", "Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item types") > >>>>>>> Num PCPs (1 instance) / NumPCPs (4 instances) > >>>>>>> (We also see "Num DSCPs" and "Num SDIs".) > >>>>>>> the individual Sub-Data Item / the individual Sub-Data Items --> > >>>>>>> [Don] Good Thanks. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thank you. > >>>>>>> Lynne Bartholomew and Rebecca VanRheenen > >>>>>>> RFC Production Center > >>>>>>> On Nov 14, 2025, at 1:54 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://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ffaq%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221549233575%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=p5EzbxA1N%2BDPcBFsNaRm89IO7u5SjnvrtBkn6u3wNDA%3D&reserved=0). > >>>>>>> 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://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftrustee.ietf.org%2Flicense-info&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221549249949%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=C8wmotPS8%2Bnh5m%2ByDA5drQbwibODtzOq5EBaTZDf%2BJY%3D&reserved=0). > >>>>>>> * 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://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fauthors.ietf.org%2Frfcxml-vocabulary&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221549267925%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=9X1vOrgpcQK0ty6aF2EPxIZ0upu5AGX7Br3zFCuNBZU%3D&reserved=0>. > >>>>>>> * 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://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fietf-announce%2Fyb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221549289428%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PMvxkF5G5ABt%2BX%2BdDQ38WUrw5Q91b7FQXVDNsfBghU8%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>>>> * The archive itself: > >>>>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fbrowse%2Fauth48archive%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221549310717%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Kn4ZInfdeXQ1wer2QsinfSipnXfOOGgStnliMMnBBBw%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>>>> * 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://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892.xml&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221549332679%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sRn7YFpis9sJ9ILtW7PIhvXOLhIas%2B3QONR%2B3Onw6Sw%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221549354016%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2YFZY0zzJwAYVp5kn3gl4C1VMKT5zgl%2FALP1FAPrPvQ%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892.pdf&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221549376745%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3ggZM%2BnnkrLtwna21QZ2pBbbpFoaEFqvU8sHJNzdE0g%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892.txt&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221549397853%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nYhcyqIH%2FW12%2BefjSckz0DKxkT8WxqqaL7TvaZNqUOw%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>>>> Diff file of the text: > >>>>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-diff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221549417594%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=kQXhGa4LXgPQJn9UGlitu%2BCS5A8Jwqlf9QIJTQDY44Q%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-rfcdiff.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221549437746%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=gSDb6mC9%2BlfFDw0axu4IorqI49BP0ilYFURdCm%2BbUZM%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>>>> (side by side) > >>>>>>> Diff of the XML: > >>>>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9892-xmldiff1.html&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221549456762%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=es%2B6q0RnvMac%2BlwDJHrhLNr5gJzdnE%2F9OhiQ04m4OUY%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>>>> Tracking progress > >>>>>>> ----------------- > >>>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > >>>>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9892&data=05%7C02%7Cjames.n.guichard%40futurewei.com%7C4701fbcbd0ce4c2b5bc708de37805394%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C639009221549475976%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=S5Nk75aPTVsFHZruHthfcji02Zc4PxV8eAZWvQAaVJg%3D&reserved=0 > >>>>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions. > >>>>>>> Thank you for your cooperation, > >>>>>>> RFC Editor > >>>>>>> -------------------------------------- > >>>>>>> RFC9892 (draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification-17) > >>>>>>> Title : Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Traffic Classification > >>>>>>> Data Item > >>>>>>> Author(s) : B. Cheng, D. Wiggins, L. Berger, D. Fedyk, 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]
