Hi Pavan, Thank you for your reply. We have updated the document accordingly and have no further questions.
Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form. We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the publication process. The updated files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9863.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9863.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9863.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9863.xml The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9863-diff.html (comprehensive diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9863-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes only) Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the most recent version. For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9863 Thank you, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Sep 26, 2025, at 5:57 PM, Vishnu Pavan Kumar Beeram > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Apologies for the delayed response. > > Please see inline (prefixed VPB). > > Regards, > -Pavan (on behalf of the authors) > > > Juniper Business Use Only > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Date: Thursday, September 18, 2025 at 10:56 PM > To: Balaji Rajagopalan <[email protected]>, Vishnu Pavan Kumar Beeram > <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, > [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, > [email protected] <[email protected]>, John Scudder > <[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9863 <draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-12> for your > review > > [External Email. Be cautious of content] > > > 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] > --> > > [VPB] Yes, these terms have a specific meaning. It should be sufficient to > add a reference at initial use. > • "PCEP Peer" appears only once — please add RFC 5440 immediately after > it. > • "TE Tunnel" appears three times, while “TE tunnel” appears four times — > RFC3209 uses both interchangeably. I would pick “TE Tunnel” and use it > everywhere. > • “SR Policy” and “SR policy” appear four times each; RFC9256 uses “SR > Policy”. So, I would recommend using “SR Policy” everywhere. > > 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. > --> > > [VPB] No objection. > > 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 > --> > > [VPB] Please use COLOR TLV, TE Tunnel and SR Policy. > The use of “Open” for referencing the Open message and “OPEN” for referencing > the OPEN object is correct — please leave it as is. > > 4) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online > Style Guide > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/*inclusive_language__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!F5J-CjMecNcavet_CjRWiQ7PPub97i8j1wBJK4LCBFF6K-qfVcES5CYHhm5yQ3_r1HMtZf9omRUZe3m3sjK3nRAH$ > > > 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. > --> > > [VPB] I did not find anything that violates the “Inclusive Language” > requirements. > > 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!F5J-CjMecNcavet_CjRWiQ7PPub97i8j1wBJK4LCBFF6K-qfVcES5CYHhm5yQ3_r1HMtZf9omRUZe3m3spsjz7gI$ > ). > 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!F5J-CjMecNcavet_CjRWiQ7PPub97i8j1wBJK4LCBFF6K-qfVcES5CYHhm5yQ3_r1HMtZf9omRUZe3m3siw8c4F1$ > ). > * 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!F5J-CjMecNcavet_CjRWiQ7PPub97i8j1wBJK4LCBFF6K-qfVcES5CYHhm5yQ3_r1HMtZf9omRUZe3m3stLXyAj6$ > >. > * 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!F5J-CjMecNcavet_CjRWiQ7PPub97i8j1wBJK4LCBFF6K-qfVcES5CYHhm5yQ3_r1HMtZf9omRUZe3m3su6xwzk2$ > * The archive itself: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!F5J-CjMecNcavet_CjRWiQ7PPub97i8j1wBJK4LCBFF6K-qfVcES5CYHhm5yQ3_r1HMtZf9omRUZe3m3sq4Opbdv$ > * 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9863.xml__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!F5J-CjMecNcavet_CjRWiQ7PPub97i8j1wBJK4LCBFF6K-qfVcES5CYHhm5yQ3_r1HMtZf9omRUZe3m3snioPxPJ$ > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9863.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!F5J-CjMecNcavet_CjRWiQ7PPub97i8j1wBJK4LCBFF6K-qfVcES5CYHhm5yQ3_r1HMtZf9omRUZe3m3srIyDsdI$ > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9863.pdf__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!F5J-CjMecNcavet_CjRWiQ7PPub97i8j1wBJK4LCBFF6K-qfVcES5CYHhm5yQ3_r1HMtZf9omRUZe3m3skZlQNNA$ > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9863.txt__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!F5J-CjMecNcavet_CjRWiQ7PPub97i8j1wBJK4LCBFF6K-qfVcES5CYHhm5yQ3_r1HMtZf9omRUZe3m3srM6Hfoc$ > Diff file of the text: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9863-diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!F5J-CjMecNcavet_CjRWiQ7PPub97i8j1wBJK4LCBFF6K-qfVcES5CYHhm5yQ3_r1HMtZf9omRUZe3m3shWwtW8E$ > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9863-rfcdiff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!F5J-CjMecNcavet_CjRWiQ7PPub97i8j1wBJK4LCBFF6K-qfVcES5CYHhm5yQ3_r1HMtZf9omRUZe3m3sh181G8O$ > (side by side) > Diff of the XML: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9863-xmldiff1.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!F5J-CjMecNcavet_CjRWiQ7PPub97i8j1wBJK4LCBFF6K-qfVcES5CYHhm5yQ3_r1HMtZf9omRUZe3m3slJc2QRs$ > Tracking progress > ----------------- > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9863__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!F5J-CjMecNcavet_CjRWiQ7PPub97i8j1wBJK4LCBFF6K-qfVcES5CYHhm5yQ3_r1HMtZf9omRUZe3m3skX3nsCn$ > 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]
