Hi Sarah, Apologies for the delay - I am replying to below not as author but as document Shepherd (which I think seems appropriate according to RFC4858)
Thank you! Andrew From: Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> Date: Friday, September 26, 2025 at 10:44 AM To: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Andrew Stone (Nokia) <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9863 <draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-12> for your review [You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information. 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] > --> > <Andrew> Correct, they reference specific things. Perhaps rather than a new sentence could the RFC references not be embedded following the first use as already done in the introduction for TE Tunnel and SR Policy? In other words, only PCEP Peer needs a reference to RFC5440 following its first use? > > 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. > --> > > <Andrew> Looks okay to me, but might be best for authors to reply. > 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 > --> > <Andrew> * I believe all references should be COLOR TLV, TE Tunnel, SR Policy * The use of Open is in two contexts, as there’s a message and an object reference. RFC5440 uses the same differences so I think no change required for that as it’s consistent with the defining RFC. > > 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. > --> > <Andrew> during Shepherd review I did not see any concerns to change. > > 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]
