Hi Authors, This is a friendly reminder that we await answers to the questions below and your review of the document before continuing with the publication process.
Thank you, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Sep 19, 2025, at 12:56 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Authors, > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) > the following questions, which are also in the source file. > > 1) <!--[rfced] We note that this document uses terms such as "PCEP Peer", > "TE Tunnel", and "SR Policy" with the second word capitalized. If > the intention is to use these terms with a specific meaning, would > you like to add a sentence stating where to find that definition? > For example: > > Perhaps: > This document uses the following terms: > > PCEP Peer as defined in [RFC5440] > SR Policy as defined in [RFC8402] > --> > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] In many RFCs, the text following a TLV diagram is a definition > list rather than a paragraph. Would you like to update this as follows? > > Current: > Type has the value 67. Length carries a value of 4. The "color" > field is 4 bytes long and carries the actual color value (specified > as an unsigned integer). A color value of zero is allowed. > > Perhaps: > Type: 67 > > Length: 4 > > Color: 4-byte field that carries the actual color value (specified > as an unsigned integer). A value of zero is allowed. > --> > > > 3) <!-- [rfced] Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be > used > inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how they > may be made consistent. > > COLOR TLV vs. Color TLV > OPEN vs. open (one instance of each) > TE Tunnel vs. TE tunnel > SR Policy vs. SR policy > --> > > > 4) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online > Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> > and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically > result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. > > Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should > still be reviewed as a best practice. > --> > > > Thank you. > > Sarah Tarrant and Alice Russo > RFC Production Center > > On Sep 18, 2025, [email protected] wrote: > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > Updated 2025/09/18 > > RFC Author(s): > -------------- > > Instructions for Completing AUTH48 > > Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and > approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. > If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies > available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). > > You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties > (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing > your approval. > > Planning your review > --------------------- > > Please review the following aspects of your document: > > * RFC Editor questions > > Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor > that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as > follows: > > <!-- [rfced] ... --> > > These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. > > * Changes submitted by coauthors > > Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your > coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you > agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. > > * Content > > Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot > change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: > - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) > - contact information > - references > > * Copyright notices and legends > > Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in > RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions > (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). > > * Semantic markup > > Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of > content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> > and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at > <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. > > * Formatted output > > Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the > formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is > reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting > limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. > > > Submitting changes > ------------------ > > To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all > the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties > include: > > * your coauthors > > * [email protected] (the RPC team) > > * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., > IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the > responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). > > * [email protected], which is a new archival mailing list > to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion > list: > > * More info: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc > > * The archive itself: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ > > * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out > of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). > If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you > have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, > [email protected] will be re-added to the CC list and > its addition will be noted at the top of the message. > > You may submit your changes in one of two ways: > > An update to the provided XML file > — OR — > An explicit list of changes in this format > > Section # (or indicate Global) > > OLD: > old text > > NEW: > new text > > You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit > list of changes, as either form is sufficient. > > We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem > beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, > and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in > the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. > > > Approving for publication > -------------------------- > > To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating > that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, > as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. > > > Files > ----- > > The files are available here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9863.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9863.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9863.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9863.txt > > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9863-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9863-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff of the XML: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9863-xmldiff1.html > > > Tracking progress > ----------------- > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9863 > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > > -------------------------------------- > RFC9863 (draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-12) > > Title : Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Extension for > Color > Author(s) : B. Rajagopalan, V. Beeram, S. Peng, M. Koldychev, G. Mishra > WG Chair(s) : Julien Meuric, Dhruv Dhody > Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter Van de Velde > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
