Hi Lynne, I am generally willing to go with the suggestions of Ron/Lou who have more history and knowledge in these draft areas than I do. See specific responses below.
On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 1:25 PM Lynne Bartholomew <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, Donald, Ronald, Lou, and Don. > > Thank you for your replies. Lou, we did not receive your first response, so > thank you for sending another. > > Don, adding you to the "To:" list, because Lou suggests three updates to > RFC-to-be 9892; please see his response below regarding our question 4). > > Donald, Ronald, and Lou, we have updated RFCs-to-be 9893, 9894, and 9895 to > use "credit window scheme" (no hyphen) per your (Donald's and Lou's) notes > below. > > = = = = = > > Please note that we will need the authors to reach agreement regarding our > questions 4), 5), and 6) before we make further updates. Please advise: > > 4): "credit window control" (approx. 24 instances in cluster) vs. "credit > window flow control" > (3 instances in cluster): Authors need to reach agreement on this. > > Donald's reply: > Yes, I would say they mean the same thing in these documents. "credit > window flow control" is just a more complete term and if there are > seveal uses in the same paragraph or the like, it is reasonable to use > the more complete term initially and the shortened term subsequently. > > Lou's reply: > So the, albeit subtle, distinction between the terms is that "credit window > flow control" is the overall preprocess of using credit-based flow control, > while "credit window control" relates to the mechanisms/procedures defined to > grant and maintain credits. I think the alternatives are to leave as is or to > clarify the distinction. > for the latter, my suggestions are: > OLD > credit/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension.xml: credit window control > mechanisms defined in <xref > credit/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension.xml: the credit window > control and flow mechanisms defined in <xref > ether-credit/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension.xml: traffic > classification and credit window control mechanisms > ether-credit/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension.xml: and the > credit window control and flow mechanisms defined in > tc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification.xml: with applications > such as credit window control as specified in > tc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification.xml: The credit window > control document provides an > tc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification.xml: credit window > control, allows credit windows to be shared > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: Credit window control > is used to regulate when data may be sent to > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: introduces support for > credit window control by defining two new DLEP > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: The use of credit window > control impacts the data plane. > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: The credit window > control mechanisms defined in this document > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: requiring the use of > credit window control is used. > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: The defined credit > window control has similar objectives as the > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: Two new messages are > defined in support for credit window control: > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: <name>Credit Window > Control Data Items</name> > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: Five new Data Items > are defined to support credit window control. > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: the credit window > control defined in this document is used. Note > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: This document introduces > credit window control and flow mechanisms > NEW > credit/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension.xml: credit window flow > control mechanisms defined in <xref > credit/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension.xml: the credit window > flow control mechanisms defined in <xref > ether-credit/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension.xml: traffic > classification and credit window flow control mechanisms > ether-credit/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension.xml: and the > credit window flow control mechanisms defined in > tc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification.xml: with applications > such as credit window flow control as specified in > tc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification.xml: The credit window > flow control document provides an > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: introduces support for > credit window flow control by defining two new DLEP > tc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification.xml: credit window flow > control, allows credit windows to be shared > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: Credit window flow > control is used to regulate when data may be sent to > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: <name>Credit Window > Flow Control</name> > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: REPLACE: The use of > credit window control impacts the data plane. > > WITH: The additions provide the DLEP mechanisms to control > credits. Routers then use this > > information to regulate when data is sent to a modem. > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: The credit window flow > control mechanisms defined in this document > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: requiring the use of > credit window flow control is used. > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: The defined credit > window flow control has similar objectives as the > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: Two new messages are > defined in support for control of credit windows: > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: Five new Data Items > are defined to support the control of credit windows. > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: the credit window > flow control defined in this document is used. Note > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: This document introduces > credit window flow control mechanisms > some of the above could refer to either the process or the mechanisms , in > which case I chose process. I think this leaves one instance: > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: <name>Credit Window > Control Data Items</name> > I think this is better then "Data Items for the Control of Credit Windows" -- > but this too is acceptable. I am OK with Lou's changes above. > 5): "Type Value" vs: "Type value": Authors need to reach agreement on this. > > Donald's reply: > I am inclined to capitalize Value. > > Lou's reply: > lower case. to be consistent with rfc8175. Ok with lower case. > 6): 'Rick Taylor's "Data Item Containers"' only mentioned in two of the four > documents: Authors need to reach agreement on the following: > > Donald's reply: > Yes, I think it would be reasonable and consistent to add that > sentence to the Acknowledgements sections of the other two > drafts. They all mention Data Items. > > Ronald's reply: > Here I have to disagree with my esteemed co-chair. Note that I am not an > author on any of these documents, so consider the following as no more than an > opinion. > > I would move in the opposite direction and keep the acknowledgment of Rick > Taylor as "the father of Sub-Data Items" *only* in > draft-ietf-manet-traffic-classification. It is not my intention to diminish in > any way the numerous and important contributions of Rick Taylor to the cluster > of credit-based flow control I-Ds, DLEP as a whole or the MANET WG in general, > but the mention of "Data Item Containers" as a predecessor of "Sub-Data Items" > only makes sense in draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification as this is > the only document in the cluster to actually specify Sub-Data Items. I believe > the acknowledgment of Rick Taylor in draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension > is there for "hysterical raisins", i.e., as a left-over from the earliest > versions of this draft which included the Traffic Classification Data Item and > its Sub-Data Items before these were moved elsewhere in version -05. See also > the Acknowledgment section of RFC 8651. (As an aside: I don't like "Sub-Data > Item" as a term. I would have preferred "Data Item Sub-item" or perhaps "Data > Sub-item" or "Data Item Sub-TLV". It is way too late to make any such change, > however, because RFC 8651 has set a precedent). > > Lou's reply: > I'd leave as is or go with Ronald's proposal. I'm fine either way so I suggest following Ron's recommendation. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA [email protected] > = = = = = > > In the meantime, the latest copies of RFCs-to-be 9893, 9894, and 9895 are > posted here. Please refresh your browser: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by > side) > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893-alt-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893-xmldiff1.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893-xmldiff2.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893-alt-diff.html > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9894.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9894.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9894.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9894.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9894-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9894-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9894-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9894-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by > side) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9894-lastdiff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9894-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9894-xmldiff1.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9894-xmldiff2.html > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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-lastdiff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895-xmldiff1.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895-xmldiff2.html > > Thanks again! > > Lynne Bartholomew > RFC Production Center > > > > On Nov 19, 2025, at 5:14 AM, Lou Berger <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Donald, > > > > Thank you for the response! please see my email (which got delayed due to > > mailer issues) and let me/us know if you are okay with my responses. > > > > Lou > > > > On 11/17/2025 5:50 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 5:16 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Authors and AD*, > >>> > >>> *AD, please see #1 below. > >>> > >>> Authors, while reviewing this cluster of documents*, please reply to > >>> the questions below regarding consistency across the cluster. These > >>> questions are in addition to the document-specific questions sent > >>> for each RFC-to-be. Your reply will likely impact two or more of the > >>> documents in the cluster, so please discuss off-list as necessary, > >>> and then let us know how to proceed. Note - You have the option of > >>> updating the edited XML files yourself, if you prefer. We will wait > >>> to hear from you before continuing with the publication process. > >>> > >>> * Cluster 541 (C541) currently in AUTH48 state: > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9892.html > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893.html > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9894.html > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895.html > >>> (In addition, the .pdf, .txt, .xml, and diff files are available.) > >>> > >>> You may track the progress of all documents in this cluster through > >>> AUTH48 at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C541 > >>> > >>> 1) *AD - We are sorry to hear of the passing of David Wiggins and > >>> Stan Ratliff. David is listed as an author for RFCs-to-be 9892, > >>> 9893, 9894, and 9895 (all documents in the cluster). Stan is listed > >>> as an author for RFC-to-be 9893. > >>> > >>> As AD, please confirm that you will approve the documents on behalf > >>> of David and Stan. (Note: Any of the three options at > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/#missingauthor are acceptable.) > >>> > >>> 2) FYI - We updated "DiffServ" to "Diffserv" throughout the cluster > >>> per https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=terms. If no > >>> objections, we will ask IANA to update the following descriptions > >>> prior to publication. > >>> Link to registry group: https://www.iana.org/assignments/dlep-parameters > >>> > >>> "Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type Values" registry > >>> (draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification): > >>> > >>> OLD: > >>> DiffServ Traffic Classification > >>> > >>> NEW: > >>> Diffserv Traffic Classification > >>> > >>> "Extension Type Values" registry > >>> (draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension): > >>> > >>> OLD: > >>> DiffServ Aware Credit Window > >>> > >>> NEW: > >>> Diffserv Aware Credit Window > >> I think these updates to only an initial captial letter are fine and > >> result in conformance to RFC Editor defaults. > >> > >>> 3) We see "Credit window control" (beginning of sentence, so the "C" is > >>> capitalized) but "credit-window scheme". We suggest updating to "credit > >>> window > >>> scheme" (no hyphen). > >> OK with me. > >> > >>> 4) Do "credit window control" (approx. 24 instances in cluster) and > >>> "credit > >>> window flow control" (3 instances in cluster) mean the same thing? Will > >>> the > >>> interchangeable usage of these terms - or the distinction between the two > >>> - > >>> be clear to readers? > >> Yes, I would say they mean the same thing in these documents. "credit > >> window flow control" is just a more complete term and if there are > >> seveal uses in the same paragraph or the like, it is reasonable to use > >> the more complete term initially and the shortened term subsequently. > >> > >>> 5) We see both "Type Value" and "Type value" in running text. Which > >>> form is preferred? > >>> > >>> Some examples: > >>> "Message Type value" in draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control > >>> > >>> "DLEP Extension Type Value" in > >>> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension and > >>> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension > >>> > >>> "DiffServ Aware Credit Window Type Value" in > >>> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension > >>> > >>> "IEEE 802.1Q Aware Credit Window Type Value" in > >>> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension > >> I am inclined to capitalize Value. > >> > >>> 6) 'Rick Taylor's "Data Item Containers"' is only mentioned in the > >>> Acknowledgments sections of two of the four documents in this group > >>> (draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification and > >>> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension). Would you like to add the > >>> applicable sentence to the Acknowledgments sections of > >>> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control and > >>> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension as well? > >> Yes, I think it would be reasonable and consistant to add that > >> sentence to the Acknowledgements sections of the other two > >> drafts. They all mention Data Items. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Donald > >> =============================== > >> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > >> 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA > >> [email protected] > > > > On Nov 19, 2025, at 5:11 AM, Lou Berger <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > sigh - my mailer (on my phone) seems to have eaten my first response. [If > > you have a copy, please send it back to me ;-)] > > This response has additional response - so if you did receive the first > > message, please use this message in its place. > > Thank you, > > Lou > > PS I see there are other responses (Thank you!) and I'll respond to those > > if I have anything to add. > > On 11/14/2025 5:16 PM, [email protected] wrote: > >> Authors and AD*, > >> > >> *AD, please see #1 below. > >> > >> Authors, while reviewing this cluster of documents*, please reply to the > >> questions below regarding consistency across the cluster. These questions > >> are > >> in addition to the document-specific questions sent for each RFC-to-be. > >> Your > >> reply will likely impact two or more of the documents in the cluster, so > >> please discuss off-list as necessary, and then let us know how to > >> proceed. Note - You have the option of updating the edited XML files > >> yourself, > >> if you prefer. We will wait to hear from you before continuing with the > >> publication process. > >> > >> * Cluster 541 (C541) currently in AUTH48 state: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9892.html > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893.html > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9894.html > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895.html > >> (In addition, the .pdf, .txt, .xml, and diff files are available.) > >> > >> You may track the progress of all documents in this cluster through AUTH48 > >> at: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C541 > >> > >> > >> 1) *AD - We are sorry to hear of the passing of David Wiggins and Stan > >> Ratliff. David is listed as an author for RFCs-to-be 9892, 9893, 9894, and > >> 9895 (all documents in the cluster). Stan is listed as an author for > >> RFC-to-be > >> 9893. > >> > >> As AD, please confirm that you will approve the documents on behalf of > >> David > >> and Stan. (Note: Any of the three options at > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/#missingauthor are acceptable.) > >> > >> > >> 2) FYI - We updated "DiffServ" to "Diffserv" throughout the cluster per > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=terms. If no objections, we > >> will ask IANA to update the following descriptions prior to publication. > >> > >> Link to registry group: https://www.iana.org/assignments/dlep-parameters > >> > >> "Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type Values" registry > >> (draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification): > >> > >> OLD: > >> DiffServ Traffic Classification > >> > >> NEW: > >> Diffserv Traffic Classification > >> > >> "Extension Type Values" registry > >> (draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension): > >> > >> OLD: > >> DiffServ Aware Credit Window > >> > >> NEW: > >> Diffserv Aware Credit Window > >> > > looks, right. Thank you. > > > >> > >> 3) We see "Credit window control" (beginning of sentence, so the "C" is > >> capitalized) but "credit-window scheme". We suggest updating to "credit > >> window > >> scheme" (no hyphen). > >> > > Sure. > >> > >> > >> 4) Do "credit window control" (approx. 24 instances in cluster) and "credit > >> window flow control" (3 instances in cluster) mean the same thing? Will the > >> interchangeable usage of these terms - or the distinction between the two - > >> be clear to readers? > >> > > So the, albeit subtle, distinction between the terms is that "credit window > > flow control" is the overall preprocess of using credit-based flow control, > > while "credit window control" relates to the mechanisms/procedures defined > > to grant and maintain credits. I think the alternatives are to leave as is > > or to clarify the distinction. > > for the latter, my suggestions are: > > OLD > > credit/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension.xml: credit window > > control mechanisms defined in <xref > > credit/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension.xml: the credit window > > control and flow mechanisms defined in <xref > > ether-credit/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension.xml: > > traffic classification and credit window control mechanisms > > ether-credit/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension.xml: and > > the credit window control and flow mechanisms defined in > > tc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification.xml: with applications > > such as credit window control as specified in > > tc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification.xml: The credit window > > control document provides an > > tc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification.xml: credit window > > control, allows credit windows to be shared > > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: Credit window control > > is used to regulate when data may be sent to > > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: introduces support > > for credit window control by defining two new DLEP > > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: The use of credit > > window control impacts the data plane. > > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: The credit window > > control mechanisms defined in this document > > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: requiring the use of > > credit window control is used. > > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: The defined credit > > window control has similar objectives as the > > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: Two new messages are > > defined in support for credit window control: > > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: <name>Credit > > Window Control Data Items</name> > > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: Five new Data Items > > are defined to support credit window control. > > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: the credit window > > control defined in this document is used. Note > > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: This document > > introduces credit window control and flow mechanisms > > NEW > > credit/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension.xml: credit window flow > > control mechanisms defined in <xref > > credit/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension.xml: the credit window > > flow control mechanisms defined in <xref > > ether-credit/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension.xml: > > traffic classification and credit window flow control mechanisms > > ether-credit/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension.xml: and > > the credit window flow control mechanisms defined in > > tc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification.xml: with applications > > such as credit window flow control as specified in > > tc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification.xml: The credit window > > flow control document provides an > > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: introduces support > > for credit window flow control by defining two new DLEP > > tc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification.xml: credit window > > flow control, allows credit windows to be shared > > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: Credit window flow > > control is used to regulate when data may be sent to > > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: <name>Credit Window > > Flow Control</name> > > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: REPLACE: The use of > > credit window control impacts the data plane. > > > > WITH: The additions provide the DLEP mechanisms to control > > credits. Routers then use this > > > > information to regulate when data is sent to a > > modem. > > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: The credit window flow > > control mechanisms defined in this document > > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: requiring the use of > > credit window flow control is used. > > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: The defined credit > > window flow control has similar objectives as the > > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: Two new messages are > > defined in support for control of credit windows: > > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: Five new Data Items > > are defined to support the control of credit windows. > > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: the credit window > > flow control defined in this document is used. Note > > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: This document > > introduces credit window flow control mechanisms > > some of the above could refer to ether the process or the mechanisms , in > > which case I chose process. I think this leaves one instance: > > fc/draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control.xml: <name>Credit > > Window Control Data Items</name> > > I think this is better then "Data Items for the Control of Credit Windows" > > -- but this too is acceptable. > >> > >> 5) We see both "Type Value" and "Type value" in running text. Which form is > >> preferred? > >> > >> Some examples: > >> "Message Type value" in draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control > >> > >> "DLEP Extension Type Value" in draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension > >> and > >> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension > >> > >> "DiffServ Aware Credit Window Type Value" in > >> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension > >> > >> "IEEE 802.1Q Aware Credit Window Type Value" in > >> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension > >> > >> > > lower case. to be consistent with rfc8175. > >> 6) 'Rick Taylor's "Data Item Containers"' is only mentioned in the > >> Acknowledgments sections of two of the four documents in this group > >> (draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification and > >> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension). Would you like to add the > >> applicable sentence to the Acknowledgments sections of > >> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control and > >> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension as well? > >> > > I'd leave as is or go with Ronald's proposal. > > Thank you! > > Lou > > > > On Nov 18, 2025, at 3:42 PM, Lou Berger <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > WFM - thanks! > > > > Lou > > > > On 11/18/2025 6:37 PM, Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >>>> 6) 'Rick Taylor's "Data Item Containers"' is only mentioned in the > >>>> Acknowledgments sections of two of the four documents in this group > >>>> (draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification and > >>>> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension). Would you like to add the > >>>> applicable sentence to the Acknowledgments sections of > >>>> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control and > >>>> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension as well? > >>> Yes, I think it would be reasonable and consistant to add that sentence to > >>> the Acknowledgements sections of the other two drafts. They all mention > >>> Data Items. > >> Here I have to disagree with my esteemed co-chair. Note that I am not an > >> author on any of these documents, so consider the following as no more > >> than an > >> opinion. > >> > >> I would move in the opposite direction and keep the acknowledgment of Rick > >> Taylor as "the father of Sub-Data Items" *only* in > >> draft-ietf-manet-traffic-classification. It is not my intention to > >> diminish in > >> any way the numerous and important contributions of Rick Taylor to the > >> cluster > >> of credit-based flow control I-Ds, DLEP as a whole or the MANET WG in > >> general, > >> but the mention of "Data Item Containers" as a predecessor of "Sub-Data > >> Items" > >> only makes sense in draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification as this is > >> the only document in the cluster to actually specify Sub-Data Items. I > >> believe > >> the acknowledgment of Rick Taylor in > >> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension > >> is there for "hysterical raisins", i.e., as a left-over from the earliest > >> versions of this draft which included the Traffic Classification Data Item > >> and > >> its Sub-Data Items before these were moved elsewhere in version -05. See > >> also > >> the Acknowledgment section of RFC 8651. (As an aside: I don't like > >> "Sub-Data > >> Item" as a term. I would have preferred "Data Item Sub-item" or perhaps > >> "Data > >> Sub-item" or "Data Item Sub-TLV". It is way too late to make any such > >> change, > >> however, because RFC 8651 has set a precedent). > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Ronald > > > > > > On Nov 18, 2025, at 3:37 PM, Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > >>> 6) 'Rick Taylor's "Data Item Containers"' is only mentioned in the > >>> Acknowledgments sections of two of the four documents in this group > >>> (draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification and > >>> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension). Would you like to add the > >>> applicable sentence to the Acknowledgments sections of > >>> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control and > >>> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension as well? > >> > >> Yes, I think it would be reasonable and consistant to add that sentence to > >> the Acknowledgements sections of the other two drafts. They all mention > >> Data Items. > > > > Here I have to disagree with my esteemed co-chair. Note that I am not an > > author on any of these documents, so consider the following as no more than > > an > > opinion. > > > > I would move in the opposite direction and keep the acknowledgment of Rick > > Taylor as "the father of Sub-Data Items" *only* in > > draft-ietf-manet-traffic-classification. It is not my intention to diminish > > in > > any way the numerous and important contributions of Rick Taylor to the > > cluster > > of credit-based flow control I-Ds, DLEP as a whole or the MANET WG in > > general, > > but the mention of "Data Item Containers" as a predecessor of "Sub-Data > > Items" > > only makes sense in draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification as this is > > the only document in the cluster to actually specify Sub-Data Items. I > > believe > > the acknowledgment of Rick Taylor in > > draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension > > is there for "hysterical raisins", i.e., as a left-over from the earliest > > versions of this draft which included the Traffic Classification Data Item > > and > > its Sub-Data Items before these were moved elsewhere in version -05. See > > also > > the Acknowledgment section of RFC 8651. (As an aside: I don't like "Sub-Data > > Item" as a term. I would have preferred "Data Item Sub-item" or perhaps > > "Data > > Sub-item" or "Data Item Sub-TLV". It is way too late to make any such > > change, > > however, because RFC 8651 has set a precedent). > > > > Thanks, > > Ronald > > > > On Nov 17, 2025, at 2:50 PM, Donald Eastlake <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 5:16 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Authors and AD*, > >> > >> *AD, please see #1 below. > >> > >> Authors, while reviewing this cluster of documents*, please reply to > >> the questions below regarding consistency across the cluster. These > >> questions are in addition to the document-specific questions sent > >> for each RFC-to-be. Your reply will likely impact two or more of the > >> documents in the cluster, so please discuss off-list as necessary, > >> and then let us know how to proceed. Note - You have the option of > >> updating the edited XML files yourself, if you prefer. We will wait > >> to hear from you before continuing with the publication process. > >> > >> * Cluster 541 (C541) currently in AUTH48 state: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9892.html > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9893.html > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9894.html > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9895.html > >> (In addition, the .pdf, .txt, .xml, and diff files are available.) > >> > >> You may track the progress of all documents in this cluster through > >> AUTH48 at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C541 > >> > >> 1) *AD - We are sorry to hear of the passing of David Wiggins and > >> Stan Ratliff. David is listed as an author for RFCs-to-be 9892, > >> 9893, 9894, and 9895 (all documents in the cluster). Stan is listed > >> as an author for RFC-to-be 9893. > >> > >> As AD, please confirm that you will approve the documents on behalf > >> of David and Stan. (Note: Any of the three options at > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/#missingauthor are acceptable.) > >> > >> 2) FYI - We updated "DiffServ" to "Diffserv" throughout the cluster > >> per https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=terms. If no > >> objections, we will ask IANA to update the following descriptions > >> prior to publication. > > > >> Link to registry group: https://www.iana.org/assignments/dlep-parameters > >> > >> "Traffic Classification Sub-Data Item Type Values" registry > >> (draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification): > >> > >> OLD: > >> DiffServ Traffic Classification > >> > >> NEW: > >> Diffserv Traffic Classification > >> > >> "Extension Type Values" registry > >> (draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension): > >> > >> OLD: > >> DiffServ Aware Credit Window > >> > >> NEW: > >> Diffserv Aware Credit Window > > > > I think these updates to only an initial captial letter are fine and > > result in conformance to RFC Editor defaults. > > > >> 3) We see "Credit window control" (beginning of sentence, so the "C" is > >> capitalized) but "credit-window scheme". We suggest updating to "credit > >> window > >> scheme" (no hyphen). > > > > OK with me. > > > >> 4) Do "credit window control" (approx. 24 instances in cluster) and "credit > >> window flow control" (3 instances in cluster) mean the same thing? Will > >> the > >> interchangeable usage of these terms - or the distinction between the two - > >> be clear to readers? > > > > Yes, I would say they mean the same thing in these documents. "credit > > window flow control" is just a more complete term and if there are > > seveal uses in the same paragraph or the like, it is reasonable to use > > the more complete term initially and the shortened term subsequently. > > > >> 5) We see both "Type Value" and "Type value" in running text. Which > >> form is preferred? > >> > >> Some examples: > >> "Message Type value" in draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control > >> > >> "DLEP Extension Type Value" in > >> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension and > >> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension > >> > >> "DiffServ Aware Credit Window Type Value" in > >> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension > >> > >> "IEEE 802.1Q Aware Credit Window Type Value" in > >> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension > > > > I am inclined to capitalize Value. > > > >> 6) 'Rick Taylor's "Data Item Containers"' is only mentioned in the > >> Acknowledgments sections of two of the four documents in this group > >> (draft-ietf-manet-dlep-traffic-classification and > >> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-da-credit-extension). Would you like to add the > >> applicable sentence to the Acknowledgments sections of > >> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-credit-flow-control and > >> draft-ietf-manet-dlep-ether-credit-extension as well? > > > > Yes, I think it would be reasonable and consistant to add that > > sentence to the Acknowledgements sections of the other two > > drafts. They all mention Data Items. > > > > Thanks, > > Donald > > =============================== > > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > > 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA > > [email protected] > > > >> Thank you, > >> > >> Lynne Bartholomew and Rebecca VanRheenen > >> RFC Production Center > > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
