It is Ok for me.
Weiqiang
---原始邮件---
发件人: "xiao.min2" <[email protected]>
发送时间: 2025-02-07 14:22:43
收件人: arusso <[email protected]>
抄送: chengweiqiang <[email protected]>
zhoutianran <[email protected]>
djy <[email protected]>
"yoav.peleg" <[email protected]>
mpls-ads <[email protected]>
mpls-chairs <[email protected]>
"tony.li" <[email protected]>
"james.n.guichard" <[email protected]>
auth48archive <[email protected]>
rfc-editor <[email protected]>
主题: Re: question - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9714 for your review
Hi Alice,
The NEW text looks good to me.
Cheers,
Xiao Min
Original
From: AliceRusso <[email protected]>
To: 肖敏10093570
Cc: 程伟强 <[email protected]>[email protected]
<[email protected]>戴锦友 <[email protected]>yoav.peleg
<[email protected]>mpls-ads <[email protected]>mpls-chairs
<[email protected]>Tony Li <[email protected]>james.n.guichard
<[email protected]>auth48archive@rfc-ed
<[email protected]>RFC Editor <[email protected]>
Date: 2025年02月07日 02:16
Subject: Re: question - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9714
<draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-18> for your review
Xiao Min, Thank you for your reply. Please review whether the NEW text (based
on your reply) is accurate. To view it in context, please see the files listed
below. ORIGINAL (the approved I-D): Note that in parallel to the work of this
document, there is ongoing work on MPLS Network Actions (MNA) [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, when published as an RFC and it is agreed
that this document will be made Historic at that time. NEW: Note that in
parallel to the work of this document, there is ongoing work, e.g.,
[MNA-PM-with-AMM], regarding 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. If [MNA-PM-with-AMM] is published as an
RFC, the status of this RFC will be reviewed and possibly changed to Historic.
Added informative reference [MNA-PM-with-AMM] Cheng, W., Min, X.,
Gandhi, R., and G. Mirsky, "MNA for Performance Measurement with
Alternate Marking Method", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-cx-mpls-mna- inband-pm-05, 21 October 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-cx-mpls-mna- inband-pm-05>.
Files available: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714.txt
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of
only the most recent changes:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714-lastdiff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9714-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side)
Thank you.RFC Editor/ar > On Feb 6, 2025, at 12:02 AM, [email protected]
wrote:> > Hi Alice,> > > > Thank you for the questions.> > Please see
inline.> > Original> From: AliceRusso <[email protected]> > To: 程伟强
<[email protected]>肖敏[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]
