On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 2:43 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Will, all, > > I confirm that no change is needed to the references. > > FWIW, as part of the IESG approval process, I have requested that RFC 7497 is > added to the downref registry... which you can see is already implemented at: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref. > > For C570 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C570), RFC-to-be 9946 is about to > be published. So, all is set for draft-ietf-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts to be > processed :-) >
Very helpful -- thank you! We just wanted to make sure that we were following all the rules! Will > Cheers, > Med > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > De : Will Hawkins <[email protected]> > > Envoyé : mardi 24 mars 2026 04:25 > > À : Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> > > Cc : [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET > > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > > [email protected] > > Objet : Re: Document intake questions about <draft-ietf-ippm- > > asymmetrical-pkts-14> > > > > > > Ms. Tarrant, > > > > Thank you for serving as the editor for our draft! We are really > > excited about seeing this RFC in final form. We have collaborated > > on a set of answers to the questions that you posed. I will put > > them inline (for maximum context). Some of our answers are > > questions and we understand that we may have to take actions based > > on your responses. > > We promise to watch closely for your feedback and act quickly -- > > we want to make your job as easy as possible. > > > > Thank you, again, for helping us bring this draft to published > > form! > > > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 4:02 PM Sarah Tarrant <[email protected] > > editor.org> wrote: > > > > > > Author(s), > > > > > > Congratulations, your document has been successfully added to > > the RFC Editor queue! > > > The team at the RFC Production Center (RPC) is looking forward > > to > > > working with you as your document moves forward toward > > publication. To > > > help reduce processing time and improve editing accuracy, please > > > respond to the questions below. Please confer with your > > coauthors (or > > > authors of other documents if your document is in a > > > cluster) as necessary prior to taking action in order to > > streamline communication. > > > If your document has multiple authors, only one author needs to > > reply > > > to this message. > > > > > > As you read through the rest of this email: > > > > > > * If you need/want to make updates to your document, we > > encourage you > > > to make those changes and resubmit to the Datatracker. This > > allows for > > > the easy creation of diffs, which facilitates review by > > interested parties (e.g., authors, ADs, doc shepherds). > > > * If you feel no updates to the document are necessary, please > > reply > > > with any applicable rationale/comments. > > > > > > > > > Please note that the RPC team will not work on your document > > until we > > > hear from you (that is, your document will remain in AUTH state > > until > > > we receive a reply). Even if you don't have guidance or don't > > feel > > > that you need to make any updates to the document, you need to > > let us > > > know. After we hear from you, your document will start moving > > through > > > the queue. You will be able to review and approve our updates > > during AUTH48. > > > > > > Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have > > at > > > [email protected]. > > > > > > Thank you! > > > The RPC Team > > > > > > -- > > > > > > 1) As there may have been multiple updates made to the document > > during > > > Last Call, please review the current version of the document: > > > > > > * Is the text in the Abstract still accurate? > > > * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments > > > sections current? > > > > > > > The abstract is accurate. There is a minor typo in the > > acknowledgments: > > Fiocolla is spelled Fioccola. We understand that you suggested we > > post updated versions of the draft through Datatracker to make > > changes but wanted to confirm that this type of error warrants a > > new draft revision. > > > > > > > > 2) Please share any style information that could help us with > > editing > > > your document. For example: > > > > > > * Is your document's format or its terminology based on another > > > document, WG style guide, etc.? If so, please provide a pointer > > to > > > that information (e.g., "This document's terminology should > > match DNS > > > terminology in RFC 9499." or "This document uses the style info > > at > > > > > <https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2 > > Fhttpwg.org%2Fadmin%2Feditors%2Fstyle- > > guide&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Cd94b93ab3c63 > > 42565d7808de8954f1f9%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C > > 639099195091626803%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWU > > sIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D > > %3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2FcV90oSrnCAn3i0zUihSrVMmmMIszVoFMtQkiMwNa > > d0%3D&reserved=0>."). > > > * Is there a general pattern of capitalization or formatting of > > terms > > > that editors can follow (e.g., "Field names should have initial > > capitalization." > > > or "Parameter names should be in double quotes." or "<tt/> > > should be > > > used for token names." etc.)? > > > > The document builds on RFC 8762 and RFC 8972. Use of STAMP-related > > terms (e.g., Session-Sender) should be consistent with their > > use/definition in the former and STAMP-extension-related terms > > (e.g., > > TLV) should be consistent with their definition/use in the latter. > > > > Capitalization and stylization of field names should be done > > according to the IETF's conventions -- we followed the guidance of > > our AD when preparing the draft. > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Please carefully review the entries and their URLs in the > > > References section with the following in mind. Note that we will > > > update as follows unless we hear otherwise at this time: > > > > > > * References to obsoleted RFCs will be updated to point to the > > current > > > RFC on the topic in accordance with Section 4.8.6 of RFC 7322 > > (RFC > > > Style Guide). > > > > > > * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will > > be > > > updated to point to the replacement I-D. > > > > > > * References to documents from other organizations that have > > been > > > superseded will be updated to their superseding version. > > > > > > Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use > > idnits > > > > > <https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2 > > Faut > > > hor- > > tools.ietf.org%2Fidnits&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange. > > > > > com%7Cd94b93ab3c6342565d7808de8954f1f9%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253 > > b6f5 > > > > > d20%7C0%7C0%7C639099195091642549%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0e > > U1hc > > > > > GkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIld > > UIjo > > > > > yfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hPUjgqt%2FE4Yoq0UF8xPeP1zTfiH%2FO9SyE > > fTK6 > > > 3iLSwI%3D&reserved=0>. You can also help the IETF Tools Team by > > > testing idnits3 > > > > > <https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2 > > Faut > > > hor- > > tools.ietf.org%2Fidnits3%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40ora > > > > > nge.com%7Cd94b93ab3c6342565d7808de8954f1f9%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b > > 9253 > > > > > b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C639099195091652782%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFb > > XB0e > > > > > U1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCI > > sIld > > > > > UIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pZXD%2B4HlELILF8foGc%2FPgdKVL%2Bl > > 4yM4 > > > vsOohp6ugIi8%3D&reserved=0> with your document and reporting any > > > issues to them. > > > > According to idnits, our normative reference to the informational > > 7497 is not appropriate problem. However, according to > > https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F > > www.ietf.org%2Fprocess%2Fprocess%2Finformational-vs- > > experimental%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Cd9 > > 4b93ab3c6342565d7808de8954f1f9%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20% > > 7C0%7C0%7C639099195091662640%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hc > > GkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIld > > UIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=j2bFsvJIe5Ac1t6utCEBQ6ipaA6%2BiDO > > cUo9cwU9EkFM%3D&reserved=0 > > and > > https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F > > datatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Frfc7322%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.bou > > cadair%40orange.com%7Cd94b93ab3c6342565d7808de8954f1f9%7C90c7a20af > > 34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C639099195091672227%7CUnknown%7CT > > WFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4 > > zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2Boq3Mko > > QZoqYxCqAf36Tn52LFaApW%2Bhs5DugN10n0Rs%3D&reserved=0, we believe > > that our reference meets the criteria for normativity (in > > particular, we rely on the definition of terms from that document > > which would make our work impossible to understand without having > > read that document). > > > > During the IETF Last Call, however, we did not explicitly > > reference this downward reference > > (https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2 > > Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Frfc3967%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.bo > > ucadair%40orange.com%7Cd94b93ab3c6342565d7808de8954f1f9%7C90c7a20a > > f34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C639099195091681629%7CUnknown%7C > > TWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW > > 4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=QTXALk7u > > 8km8%2BYWngMtbRsNzmsqOOf%2FVHE1fkwmOLY0%3D&reserved=0). > > > > Any advice you have on how to proceed would be greatly > > appreciated. > > > > > > > > > > > 4) Is there any text that requires special handling? For > > example: > > > * Are there any sections that were contentious when the document > > was drafted? > > > * Are any sections that need to be removed before publication > > marked > > > as such (e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942)). > > > * Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should > > be > > > edited the same way? > > > > > > > There is an implementation section that should be removed (6). > > There are IANA allocations that need to be made (8). > > > > > > > > 5) This document contains SVG. What tool did you use to make the > > svg? > > > > > > The RPC cannot update SVG diagrams, so please ensure that: > > > > > > * the SVG figures match the ASCII art used in the text output as > > > closely as possible, and > > > * the figures fit on the pages of the PDF output. > > > > All diagrams in the XML source code of the document are contained > > in artsets. As such, there is an ASCII version and an SVG version > > of each diagram. We believe that the inclusion of both forms of > > the artwork should give editors maximum flexibility. SVG versions > > of the diagrams were constructed using aasvg. > > > > > > > > > > > 6) This document is part of Cluster 570: > > > > > https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F > > www. > > > rfc- > > editor.org%2Fcluster_info.php%3Fcid%3DC570&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed. > > > > > boucadair%40orange.com%7Cd94b93ab3c6342565d7808de8954f1f9%7C90c7a2 > > 0af3 > > > > > 4b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C639099195091691107%7CUnknown%7CTW > > FpbG > > > > > Zsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIs > > IkFO > > > > > IjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nprh3f22XC4AOf%2Bm > > mLpQ > > > P721atRPEvzvn3j4UHSK53g%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > * To help the reader understand the content of the cluster, is > > there a > > > document in the cluster that should be read first? Next? If so, > > please > > > provide the order and we will provide RFC numbers for the > > documents accordingly. > > > If order is not important, please let us know. > > > * Is there any text that has been repeated within the cluster > > document > > > that should be edited in the same way (for instance, parallel > > > introductory text or Security Considerations)? > > > * For more information about clusters, see > > > > > https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F > > www. > > > rfc- > > editor.org%2Fabout%2Fclusters%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair% > > > > > 40orange.com%7Cd94b93ab3c6342565d7808de8954f1f9%7C90c7a20af34b40bf > > bc48 > > > > > b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C639099195091700488%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8 > > eyJF > > > > > bXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTW > > FpbC > > > > > IsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FSyZuoqeSA84LiEdEU%2BDUhpoG9 > > V7PD > > > nGCn1tnWRThik%3D&reserved=0 > > > * For a list of all current clusters, see: > > > > > https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fw > > ww.r > > > fc- > > editor.org%2Fall_clusters.php&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40o > > r > > > > > ange.com%7Cd94b93ab3c6342565d7808de8954f1f9%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48 > > b925 > > > > > 3b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C639099195091710036%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJF > > bXB0 > > > > > eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbC > > IsIl > > > > > dUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ECtt6Q4ym1XZii48F1e%2FZ9oPBGwQ4D > > aUQW > > > dkokLadtE%3D&reserved=0 > > > > RFC 8762 and RFC 8972 establish, broadly, the context for the > > protocol mechanisms defined by this draft. The former should be > > read before the latter. RFC 7497 establishes, broadly, the context > > for the operational deployment of the protocol mechanisms defined > > by this draft to perform active measurement of the capacity of a > > network. > > > > > > Thank you, again, for helping us! We will keep our eyes peeled for > > responses from you and take the appropriate action! > > > > Sincerely, > > Will (for all the authors) > > > > > > > > > > > 7) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while > > > editing this document? > > > > > > > On Mar 18, 2026, at 2:59 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > > Author(s), > > > > > > > > Your document draft-ietf-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts-14, which has > > been > > > > approved for publication as an RFC, has been added to the RFC > > Editor > > > > queue > > <https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2 > > Fwww.rfc- > > editor.org%2Fcurrent_queue.php&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40 > > orange.com%7Cd94b93ab3c6342565d7808de8954f1f9%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc > > 48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C639099195091719925%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3 > > d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFO > > IjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=C9ZH2eSZfqu2XY4QVS > > cqhHGTYI71aMo7gh1MfSjCs28%3D&reserved=0>. > > > > > > > > If your XML file was submitted using the I-D submission tool > > > > > > <https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2 > > Fd > > > > > > atatracker.ietf.org%2Fsubmit%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%4 > > 0orange.com%7Cd94b93ab3c6342565d7808de8954f1f9%7C90c7a20af34b40bfb > > c48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C639099195091729312%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb > > 3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkF > > OIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=J5VMUHEjuBG5nCZeK > > b1ixzm6dk4muh6XxgfAfO3fY%2BY%3D&reserved=0>, we have already > > retrieved it and have started working on it. > > > > > > > > If you did not submit the file via the I-D submission tool, or > > if > > > > you have an updated version (e.g., updated contact > > information), > > > > please send us the file at this time by attaching it in your > > reply > > > > to this message and specifying any differences between the > > approved > > > > I-D and the file that you are providing. > > > > > > > > You will receive a separate message from us asking for style > > input. > > > > Please respond to that message. When we have received your > > > > response, your document will then move through the queue. The > > first > > > > step that we take as your document moves through the queue is > > > > converting it to RFCXML (if it is not already in RFCXML) and > > > > applying the formatting steps listed at > > <https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2 > > Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fpubprocess%2Fhow-we- > > update%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40orange.com%7Cd94b93ab > > 3c6342565d7808de8954f1f9%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C > > 0%7C639099195091739256%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnR > > ydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyf > > Q%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Fhy%2F4wR%2FYJ3rhYz2MFovBtdr0QwkePThXuG > > pAtlApTE%3D&reserved=0>. > > > > Next, we will edit for clarity and apply the style guide > > > > > > (<https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F% > > 2Fwww.rfc- > > editor.org%2Fstyleguide%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40oran > > ge.com%7Cd94b93ab3c6342565d7808de8954f1f9%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc48b9 > > 253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C639099195091748917%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8ey > > JFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoi > > TWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2Fec76YiZbEvCsmSI%2F% > > 2FQFmfqIStXUCjHmHzjUyh%2BuwFI%3D&reserved=0>). > > > > > > > > You can check the status of your document at > > > > > > <https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2 > > Fwww.rfc- > > editor.org%2Fcurrent_queue.php&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadair%40 > > orange.com%7Cd94b93ab3c6342565d7808de8954f1f9%7C90c7a20af34b40bfbc > > 48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C639099195091762264%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3 > > d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFO > > IjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=SRtaJkI4MLT74xrccY > > 1AQ4JaS8ymcfCpq04hG7M8PQk%3D&reserved=0>. > > > > > > > > You will receive automatic notifications as your document > > changes > > > > queue state (for more information about these states, please > > see > > > > > > <https://fra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2 > > Fw > > > > ww.rfc- > > editor.org%2Fabout%2Fqueue%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed.boucadai > > > > > > r%40orange.com%7Cd94b93ab3c6342565d7808de8954f1f9%7C90c7a20af34b40 > > bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C639099195091775536%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbG > > Zsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIs > > IkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=MS4c70J6uqNX9R > > KGxqMgBte0eqnnlV8GcGRpb8Wu%2FNw%3D&reserved=0>). When we have > > completed our edits, we will move your document to AUTH48 state > > and ask you to perform a final review of the document. > > > > > > > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > > > The RFC Editor Team > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu > ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou > falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete > this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
