Hi Lynne, See below.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 3:19 PM Lynne Bartholomew <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi again, Donald. Thanks for another quick reply! We have updated this > document as well, per your notes below. > > Regarding your second update note from further below: > > > Section 3, 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence, seems a bit incomplete and > > fuzzy. I believe the following is clearer. > > > > OLD > > VID value zero (0) is used by > > [RFC9892] to indicate that the VID is ignored and any other VID > > value is > > used in traffic classification. > > NEW > > VID value zero (0x0000) is used by > > [RFC9892] to indicate that the VID is ignored and VID 0xFFFF is > > reserved. Any other VID value from 0x0001 through 0xFFFE can be > > used in traffic classification. > > We are having trouble parsing the "NEW" text. Does it mean > > VID value zero (0x0000) is used by > [RFC9892] to indicate that (1) the VID is ignored and (2) VID 0xFFFF is > reserved. Any other VID value from 0x0001 through 0xFFFE can be > used in traffic classification. > > or > > VID value zero (0x0000) is used by > [RFC9892] to indicate that the VID is ignored. VID 0xFFFF is > reserved. Any other VID value from 0x0001 through 0xFFFE can be > used in traffic classification. > > ? > > Seems like the latter, but please advise. Yes, you are correct. It is the latter. > = = = = = > > A couple more follow-up questions: > > 1. Should "composed of" be changed to "built on" in RFC-to-be 9894 > as well, as was done per your first note further below for this > document? > > From the latest rfc9894.txt: > The extension defined in this document is composed of the mechanisms Yes, I think the change should be made in RFC-to-be 9894 as well. > 2. In companion document RFC-to-be 9892, should we ask the authors > if the "zero (0)" in the following paragraph should be updated to > list the hex value 0x0000, as was done per your second update note > (further below) for this document? We ask because we see two > instances of "The value 0xFFFF is reserved" in RFC-to-be 9892: > > VLAN Identifier (VID): > A 12-bit unsigned integer field indicating the VLAN to be used in > traffic classification. A value of zero (0) indicates that the > VID is to be ignored and any VID is to be accepted during traffic > classification. Any explicitly mapped VLANs are matched first. > Any VLANs that do not have a mapping will then map to this default > mapping. Well, I don't think the two occurrences of 0xFFFF in this document have anything to do with this because they refer to the FID, not the VID. However, I think the full change to this text that I suggested for this (except the self-referential reference to 9892) would be good so OLD A value of zero (0) indicates that the VID is to be ignored and any VID is to be accepted during traffic classification. NEW VID value zero (0x0000) is used by to indicate that the VID is ignored and VID 0xFFFF is reserved. Any other VID value from 0x0001 through 0xFFFE can be used in traffic classification. Perhaps you should suggest the above to the authors. Actually, use of "(0)" is not wrong, it's just that it seems much more consistent for all the VIDs (VLAN IDs) to be given in the same hex format. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA [email protected] > = = = = = > > The latest files are posted here. Please refresh your browser: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by > side) > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895-xmldiff1.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895-xmldiff2.html > > Thanks again for your attentiveness to these documents! > > Lynne Bartholomew > RFC Production Center > > > On Nov 16, 2025, at 8:18 PM, Donald Eastlake <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 5:12 PM <[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] Document title: FYI, for ease of the reader and per our > >> process, we expanded "DLEP" in the title. Please review. > >> > >> Original: > >> DLEP IEEE 802.1Q Aware Credit Window Extension > >> > >> Currently: > >> Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) IEEE 802.1Q Aware Credit Window > >> Extension --> > > > > OK. > > > >> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear > >> in the title) for use on <https://www.rfc-editor.org/search>. --> > > > > I don't know of any added keywords. > > > >> 3) <!-- [rfced] Section 1: Are one or more words missing from this > >> sentence? If neither suggestion below is correct, please clarify > >> what is shared. > >> > >> Original: > >> Credit windows > >> may be allocated on either a shared or a per-flow basis. > >> > >> Suggestion #1 (flows are shared): > >> Credit windows > >> may be allocated on either a shared-flow or per-flow basis. > >> > >> Suggestion #2 (windows are shared): > >> Credit windows > >> may be allocated on either a shared-window or per-flow basis. --> > > > > Well, #2 is correct. But maybe it would be clearer to say > > > > Credit windows may be shared across multiple flows or used on a per > > flow basis. > > > >> 4) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of > >> the online Style Guide at > >> <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. --> > > > > I do not think any changes are needed for this reason. > > > >> 5) <!-- [rfced] The following term appears to be used inconsistently > >> in this document. Please let us know which form is preferred. > >> > >> IEEE 802.1Q Aware Credit Window Type Value / > >> IEEE 802.1Q Aware Credit Window Extension Type Value --> > > > > I think the more complete version with the word "Extension" is good. > > > > See further suggested changes below. > > > >> Thank you. > >> > >> Lynne Bartholomew and Rebecca VanRheenen > >> RFC Production Center > >> > >> > >> On Nov 14, 2025, at 2:10 PM, [email protected] wrote: > >> > >> *****IMPORTANT***** > >> > >> Updated 2025/11/14 > >> > >> 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) > > > > Section 2, first stentence. Saying "composed of" makes it sound like > > its all in RFCs 9892 and 9893 with nothing added by this document. > > Suggest the following: > > > > OLD > > The extension defined in this document is composed of the mechanisms > > and processing defined in [RFC9892] and [RFC9893]. > > NEW > > The extension defined in this document is built on the mechanisms > > and processing defined in [RFC9892] and [RFC9893]. > > > > Section 3, 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence, seems a bit incomplete and > > fuzzy. I believe the following is clearer. > > > > OLD > > VID value zero (0) is used by > > [RFC9892] to indicate that the VID is ignored and any other VID > > value is > > used in traffic classification. > > NEW > > VID value zero (0x0000) is used by > > [RFC9892] to indicate that the VID is ignored and VID 0xFFFF is > > reserved. Any other VID value from 0x0001 through 0xFFFE can be > > used in traffic classification. > > > > Thanks, > > Donald > > =============================== > > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > > 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA > > [email protected] > > > >> 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/rfc9895.xml > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895.html > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895.pdf > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895.txt > >> > >> Diff file of the text: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895-diff.html > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > >> > >> Diff of the XML: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895-xmldiff1.html > >> > >> > >> Tracking progress > >> ----------------- > >> > >> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9895 > >> > >> Please let us know if you have any questions. > >> > >> Thank you for your cooperation, > >> > >> RFC Editor > >> > >> -------------------------------------- > >> RFC9895 (draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension-09) > >> > >> Title : DLEP IEEE 802.1Q Aware Credit Window Extension > >> Author(s) : D. Wiggins, L. Berger, D. Eastlake 3rd, Ed. > >> WG Chair(s) : Don Fedyk, Ronald in 't Velt, Donald E. Eastlake 3rd > >> > >> Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter Van de Velde -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
