Hi Sarah,
Sorry for late response due to vacation.
I have not further review comments for this document and think it is ready for
publication. Thanks!
Regards,
PSF
发自我的zMail
Original
From：SarahTarrant <[email protected]>;
To：Balaji Rajagopalan <[email protected]>; Vishnu Pavan Kumar Beeram
<[email protected]>; 彭少富10053815; [email protected]
<[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>;
Cc：[email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected]
<[email protected]>; pce-chairs <[email protected]>; [email protected]
<[email protected]>; John Scudder <[email protected]>;
[email protected] <[email protected]>;
Date：2025-10-07 00:06:03
Subject：Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9863 <draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-12> for your
review
Hi Authors,
This is a friendly reminder that we have yet to hear back from some of you
regarding this document’s readiness for publication.
Please review the AUTH48 status page (http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9863)
for further information and the previous messages in this thread for pertinent
communication.
Thank you,
Sarah Tarrant
RFC Production Center
> On Sep 29, 2025, at 9:00 AM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> 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]
