Hi Alice,
Thank you for the questions.
Please see inline.
Original
From: AliceRusso <[email protected]>
To: 程伟强 <[email protected]>;肖敏10093570;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;戴锦友 <[email protected]>;yoav.peleg
<[email protected]>;
Cc: mpls-ads <[email protected]>;mpls-chairs <[email protected]>;Tony Li
<[email protected]>;james.n.guichard
<[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;RFC Editor <[email protected]>;
Date: 2025年02月06日 11:13
Subject: question - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9714
<draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-18> for your review
Authors,
As we prepare your document [1] for publication, we have additional questions
regarding this text.
Section 1:
Note that in parallel to the work of this document, there is ongoing
work on MPLS Network Actions (MNAs) [RFC9613]. The MPLS performance
measurement with the Alternate-Marking Method can also be achieved by
MNA encapsulation. In addition, MNA will provide a broader use-case
applicability. That means the MNA encapsulation is expected to
provide a more advanced solution. Once published as an RFC, it is
agreed that this document will be made Historic.
Please clarify this paragraph, specifically:
a) Does "ongoing work" refer to draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk [2] or RFC 9613? The
latter seems odd to refer to as "ongoing work". We note that until version 17
[3], this sentence cited draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk rather than RFC 9613 (which
was draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements):
Note that in parallel to the work of this document, there is ongoing
work on MPLS Network Actions (MNA) [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk].
[XM]>>> No. The "ongoing work" refers to MNA encapsulation for MPLS PM with
AMM (e.g., draft-cx-mpls-mna-inband-pm) , neither draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk nor
RFC 9613. Here the reference to RFC 9613 or draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk is used to
clarify what's MNA.
b) Does "Once published as an RFC" refer to the "ongoing work"? Depending on
your answer above, perhaps "Once [MNA-FRAMEWORK] is published as an RFC".
[XM]>>> Yes. However, as I said above, the "ongoing work" is neither
[MNA-FRAMEWORK] nor [MNA-REQUIREMENTS].
c) Regarding "this document will be made Historic", is it accurate that you are
assuming there will be a Status Change for the present document (RFC 9714)? If
so, then perhaps it's more clear to say "the status of this RFC will be
reviewed and possibly changed to Historic"?
[XM]>>> Yes. I agree the new text you wrote is more clear.
Best Regards,
Xiao Min
[1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714.txt [and html and pdf]
[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk/
(in the RFC Editor queue in EDIT state)
[3]
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-17..txt
Thank you.
RFC Editor/ar--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
