Hi Ted and Stuart.
Thank you for your replies and status updates.
Please let us know when updates to the relevant GitHub repos and additional WG
reviews are complete. Note that we will review the updates and seek AD approval
as needed.
For clarity, please confirm that these are the GitHub repos being updated:
•
https://github.com/dnssd-wg/draft-ietf-dnssd-update-lease/blob/main/draft-ietf-dnssd-update-lease.xml
•
https://github.com/dnssd-wg/draft-ietf-dnssd-srp/blob/main/draft-ietf-dnssd-srp.xml
Sincerely,
RFC Editor/st
> On Dec 4, 2024, at 3:14 PM, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote:
>
> I have finished my work on both documents and have uploaded new versions on
> github. Stuart has some additional updates to make based on his review of the
> document, and we met to discuss his work this evening. I think he has some
> conflicts and won't be able to update until next week, but I also get the
> sense that his changes are pretty light.
>
> The RFC Editor edits were pretty heavy, and some of the questions you raised
> required broad text changes. The majority of these changes are purely
> editorial, but a few errata were caught. As a result I would not want to move
> forward without giving the WG an opportunity to review the changes.
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2024 at 5:12 PM Sarah Tarrant <starr...@amsl.com> wrote:
> Authors and AD,
>
> Please see mail below regarding this document as well as our cluster-wide
> email with questions relating to all three related documents.
>
> This document set has been in AUTH48 since mid-September. Please let us know
> if there is anything we can do to facilitate moving the AUTH48 review forward.
>
> Sincerely,
> RFC Editor/st
>
> > On Nov 22, 2024, at 2:11 PM, Sarah Tarrant <starr...@amsl.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > This is a friendly weekly reminder that we await answers to the questions
> > below and your review of the document before continuing with the
> > publication process.
> >
> > Please let us know if we can be of further assistance as you complete your
> > review.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > RFC Editor/st
> >
> >> On Nov 14, 2024, at 2:27 PM, Sarah Tarrant <starr...@amsl.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> This is a friendly weekly reminder that we await answers to the questions
> >> below and your review of the document before continuing with the
> >> publication process.
> >>
> >> Please let us know if we can be of further assistance as you complete your
> >> review.
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >> RFC Editor/st
> >>
> >>> On Nov 4, 2024, at 1:46 PM, Sarah Tarrant <starr...@amsl.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Ted,
> >>>
> >>> Thank you for the update!
> >>>
> >>> Sincerely,
> >>> RFC Editor/st
> >>>
> >>>> On Nov 4, 2024, at 11:57 AM, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Sarah, I've been working my way through the diffs of my previous review
> >>>> to make sure I get everything. The edit to update-lease is pretty heavy.
> >>>> Should be done with both sometime tomorrow. Sorry it's taking so long.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 5:37 PM Sarah Tarrant <starr...@amsl.com> wrote:
> >>>> Hi all,
> >>>>
> >>>> This is a friendly reminder that we await answers to the questions below
> >>>> and your review of the document before continuing with the publication
> >>>> process.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you,
> >>>> RFC Editor/st
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Oct 7, 2024, at 12:39 PM, Sarah Tarrant <starr...@amsl.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Authors,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is a friendly reminder that we await answers to the questions
> >>>>> below and your review of the document before continuing with the
> >>>>> publication process.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>> RFC Editor/st
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sep 30, 2024, at 10:56 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Authors,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as
> >>>>>> necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1) <!--[rfced] We had two related questions about these sentences:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> a) We were unsure if some singular/plural changes should be made with
> >>>>>> regard to "Leases". See suggested text below.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> b) Should the use of "DNS" be made uniform? That is, "Dynamic DNS
> >>>>>> Update Leases Requests and Responses" or "Dynamic Update Leases
> >>>>>> Requests and Responses"?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Original 1:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Dynamic DNS Update Leases Requests and Responses are formatted as
> >>>>>> standard DNS Dynamic Update messages [RFC2136]. This update MUST
> >>>>>> include the EDNS(0) OPT RR, as described in [RFC6891].
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Perhaps ("Leases" becomes "Lease" and "This update" becomes "These
> >>>>>> updates"):
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Dynamic DNS Update Lease Requests and Responses are formatted as
> >>>>>> standard DNS Dynamic Update messages [RFC2136]. These updates MUST
> >>>>>> include the EDNS(0) OPT RR, as described in [RFC6891].
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> or perhaps ("Leases" becomes "Lease" and "These updates" becomes "This
> >>>>>> new format"):
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Dynamic DNS Update Lease Requests and Responses are formatted as
> >>>>>> standard DNS Dynamic Update messages [RFC2136]. This new format
> >>>>>> MUST include the EDNS(0) OPT RR, as described in [RFC6891].
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Original 2:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Refresh messages are formatted like Dynamic Update Leases Requests
> >>>>>> and Responses...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Perhaps ("Leases" becomes "Lease"):
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Refresh messages are formatted like Dynamic Update Lease Requests
> >>>>>> and Responses...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -->
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2) <!--[rfced] Might the following update be less redundant than the
> >>>>>> original?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Original:
> >>>>>> DNS Servers implementing the Update Lease option MUST include an
> >>>>>> Update Lease option in response to any successful DNS Update
> >>>>>> (RCODE=0) that includes an Update Lease option.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Perhaps:
> >>>>>> DNS servers MUST include an Update Lease option in response to any
> >>>>>> successful DNS Update (RCODE=0) that also includes one.
> >>>>>> -->
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 3) <!--[rfced] May we update this text as follows to reduce redundancy?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Original:
> >>>>>> In order to prevent records expiring, requestors MUST refresh
> >>>>>> resource records before they expire.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Perhaps:
> >>>>>> In order to prevent records expiring, requestors MUST refresh
> >>>>>> them.
> >>>>>> -->
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] We suggest the following update as BCP 14 uses
> >>>>>> "RECOMMENDED" (with the -ed ending). Please let us know any
> >>>>>> objections.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Current:
> >>>>>> We RECOMMEND a minimum of 30 seconds for
> >>>>>> both the LEASE and KEY-LEASE intervals.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Perhaps:
> >>>>>> A minimum of 30 seconds for both the LEASE and KEY-LEASE
> >>>>>> intervals is RECOMMENDED.
> >>>>>> -->
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 5) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions related to terminology
> >>>>>> used
> >>>>>> throughout the document:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We see the following similar terms. Please let us know if/how they
> >>>>>> may be made uniform.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> (4-byte) variant vs. 4-byte variant
> >>>>>> (8-byte) variant vs. 8-byte variant
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -->
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in this document
> >>>>>> should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container
> >>>>>> for content that is semantically less important or tangential to
> >>>>>> the content that surrounds it"
> >>>>>> (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Specifically, we're referring to the instances of "Note:" in Section
> >>>>>> 4.2 and of "Note that" in Section 4.3.
> >>>>>> -->
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 7) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the
> >>>>>> online Style Guide
> >>>>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
> >>>>>> and let us know if any changes are needed.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this
> >>>>>> should still be reviewed as a best practice.
> >>>>>> -->
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thank you.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> RFC Editor/st/mf
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Updated 2024/09/30
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (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).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, 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,
> >>>>>> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org 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://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9664.xml
> >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9664.html
> >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9664.pdf
> >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9664.txt
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Diff file of the text:
> >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9664-diff.html
> >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9664-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Diff of the XML:
> >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9664-xmldiff1.html
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Tracking progress
> >>>>>> -----------------
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
> >>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9664
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> RFC Editor
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --------------------------------------
> >>>>>> RFC9664 (draft-ietf-dnssd-update-lease-08)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Title : An EDNS(0) option to negotiate Leases on DNS Updates
> >>>>>> Author(s) : S. Cheshire, T. Lemon
> >>>>>> WG Chair(s) : Chris Box, David Schinazi
> >>>>>> Area Director(s) : Erik Kline, Éric Vyncke
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
--
auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
