Hi Ties, Thank you for your review. We have received all of the needed approvals, so we will continue with publication shortly.
Thank you, RFC Editor/sg > On Dec 4, 2024, at 2:46 AM, Ties de Kock <tdek...@ripe.net> wrote: > > Hi Sandy, > > I approve publication. > > Kind regards, > Ties > > On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 at 21:32, Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@amsl.com> wrote: > Hi Job, > > Thanks for your review. We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 page > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9697>. We will wait to hear from your > coauthor before continuing with the publication process. > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/sg > > > On Dec 3, 2024, at 3:11 AM, Job Snijders <j...@fastly.com> wrote: > > > > Dear Sandy, > > > > I approve publication. > > > > Thank you so much for your work! The document became much better. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Job > > > > On Mon, Dec 02, 2024 at 02:58:34PM -0800, Sandy Ginoza wrote: > >> Hi Job, > >> > >> We have updated the document as described below. In addition, we updated > >> the XML to include a closing quote after 1772 as follows: > >> > >> <delta serial="1772 uri="https://rrdp.example.net/1772/delta.xml” > >> > >> > >> The current files are available here: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9697.xml > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9697.txt > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9697.pdf > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9697.html > >> > >> AUTH48 diff (currently shows the most recent updates only): > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9697-auth48diff.html > >> > >> Comprehensive diffs: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9697-diff.html > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9697-rfcdiff.html > >> > >> Please review and let us know if any additional updates are needed or if > >> you approve the RFC for publication. > >> > >> Thank you, > >> RFC Editor/sg > >> > >> > >>> On Nov 27, 2024, at 3:36 AM, Job Snijders > >>> <job=40fastly....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> Dear RFC Editor, > >>> > >>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 07:00:09PM -0800, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > >>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as > >>>> necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file. > >>>> > >>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble parsing this text. We see this > >>>> text appears in RFC 7115: > >>>> > >>>> Like the DNS, the global RPKI presents only a loosely consistent > >>>> view, depending on timing, updating, fetching, etc. > >>>> > >>>> When combined in the new sentence, it is unclear how "depending on > >>>> timing..." relates to the rest of the sentence. Perhaps the sentence > >>>> should be broken into two? Please clarify. > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> While the global RPKI is understood to present a loosely consistent > >>>> view, depending on timing, updating, fetching (see Section 6 of > >>>> [RFC7115]), different caches having different data for the same RRDP > >>>> session at the same serial violates the principle of least > >>>> astonishment. > >>>> --> > >>> > >>> PERHAPS: > >>> Even though the global RPKI is understood to present a loosely > >>> consistent view which depends on the cache's timing of updates (see > >>> Section 6 of [RFC7115]), different caches having different data for > >>> the same RRDP session at the same serial violates the principle of > >>> least astonishment. > >>> > >>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] May the word 'protocol' be removed from the following > >>>> (as shown below) because it's redundant with the expansion of RRDP? > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> ... is an absolute requirement for the RRDP protocol to work well. > >>>> > >>>> Perhaps: > >>>> ... is an absolute requirement for RRDP to work well. > >>>> --> > >>> > >>> Yes, "... is an absolute requirement for RRDP to work well." is OK. > >>> > >>>> 3) <!-- [rfced] We have added a closing quote to the last line of figure > >>>> 1 so it's well formed. Please review and let us know if corrections are > >>>> needed. > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> <delta serial="1772" > >>>> hash="d4087585323fd6b7fd899ebf662ef213c469d39f53839fa6241847f4f6ceb939" > >>>> uri="https://rrdp.example.net/1772/delta.xml /> > >>>> > >>>> Current: > >>>> <delta serial="1772" > >>>> hash="d4087585323fd6b7fd899ebf662ef213c469d39f53839fa6241847f4f6ceb939" > >>>> uri="https://rrdp.example.net/1772/delta.xml"; /> > >>> > >>> Ah, good catch, thank you! > >>> > >>>> We updated figure 3 similarly. Please review. > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> <delta serial="1775" > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> hash="d199376e98a9095dbcf14ccd49208b4223a28a1327669f89566475d94b2b08cc" > >>>> > >>>> uri="https://rrdp.example.net/1775/delta.xml /> > >>>> > >>>> Current: > >>>> <delta serial="1775" > >>>> > >>>> hash="d199376e98a9095dbcf14ccd49208b4223a28a1327669f89566475d94b2b08cc" > >>>> uri="https://rrdp.example.net/1775/delta.xml"; /> > >>>> --> > >>> > >>> Good catch, thank you! > >>> > >>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] As this text would be added to RFC 8182, it would be odd > >>>> to refer to itself. We updated the text to indicate "Section 3.4.3", > >>>> where 3.4.3 links to Section 3.4.3 in RFC 8182. Please review and let > >>>> us know if you have any concerns. (Note that the .txt will show as > >>>> below, without a link.) > >>>> > >>>> Original: > >>>> | ... The Relying Party > >>>> | SHOULD then download and process the Snapshot File specified in > >>>> | the downloaded Update Notification File as described in > >>>> | Section 3.4.3 of [RFC8182] > >>>> > >>>> Current: > >>>> | ... The Relying Party SHOULD > >>>> | then download and process the Snapshot File specified in the > >>>> | downloaded Update Notification File as described in Section 3.4.3. > >>>> --> > >>> > >>> Yup, perfect. > >>> > >>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] Please review the sourcecode in Figures 1 and 3 as there > >>>> are a > >>>> few lines that exceed the 69-character limit and let us know how we may > >>>> add line breaks. > >>> > >>> Figure 1 can be as follows: > >>> > >>> <sourcecode type="xml"> > >>> <![CDATA[ > >>> <notification xmlns="http://www.ripe.net/rpki/rrdp"; version="1" > >>> session_id="fe528335-db5f-48b2-be7e-bf0992d0b5ec" serial="1774"> > >>> <snapshot uri="https://rrdp.example.net/1774/snapshot.xml"; > >>> hash= > >>> "4b5f27b099737b8bf288a33796bfe825fb2014a69fd6aa99080380299952f2e2" > >>> /> > >>> <delta serial="1774" uri="https://rrdp.example.net/1774/delta.xml"; > >>> hash= > >>> "effac94afd30bbf1cd6e180e7f445a4d4653cb4c91068fa9e7b669d49b5aaa00" > >>> /> > >>> <delta serial="1773" uri="https://rrdp.example.net/1773/delta.xml"; > >>> hash= > >>> "731169254dd5de0ede94ba6999bda63b0fae9880873a3710e87a71bafb64761a" > >>> /> > >>> <delta serial="1772 uri="https://rrdp.example.net/1772/delta.xml"; > >>> hash= > >>> "d4087585323fd6b7fd899ebf662ef213c469d39f53839fa6241847f4f6ceb939" > >>> /> > >>> </notification> > >>> ]]> > >>> </sourcecode> > >>> > >>> Figure 3 can be as follows: > >>> > >>> <sourcecode type="xml"> > >>> <![CDATA[ > >>> <notification xmlns="http://www.ripe.net/rpki/rrdp"; version="1" > >>> session_id="fe528335-db5f-48b2-be7e-bf0992d0b5ec" serial="1775"> > >>> <snapshot uri="https://rrdp.example.net/1775/snapshot.xml"; > >>> hash= > >>> "cd430c386deacb04bda55301c2aa49f192b529989b739f412aea01c9a77e5389" > >>> /> > >>> <delta serial="1775" uri="https://rrdp.example.net/1775/delta.xml"; > >>> hash= > >>> "d199376e98a9095dbcf14ccd49208b4223a28a1327669f89566475d94b2b08cc" > >>> /> > >>> <delta serial="1774" uri="https://rrdp.example.net/1774/delta.xml"; > >>> hash= > >>> "10ca28480a584105a059f95df5ca8369142fd7c8069380f84ebe613b8b89f0d3" > >>> /> > >>> <delta serial="1773" uri="https://rrdp.example.net/1773/delta.xml"; > >>> hash= > >>> "731169254dd5de0ede94ba6999bda63b0fae9880873a3710e87a71bafb64761a" > >>> /> > >>> </notification> > >>> ]]> > >>> </sourcecode> > >>> > >>>> Additionally, please consider whether the "type" attribute of any > >>>> sourcecode > >>>> element should be set. Note that it is also acceptable to leave the > >>>> "type" > >>>> attribute not set. > >>>> > >>>> The current list of preferred values for "type" is available at > >>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types>. > >>>> If the current list does not contain an applicable type, feel free to > >>>> suggest additions for consideration. > >>>> --> > >>> > >>> The type "xml" can be set for both source code sections. > >>> > >>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] In the html and pdf outputs, the text enclosed in <em> > >>>> is output in italics. In the txt output, the text enclosed in <em> > >>>> appears with an underscore before and after. > >>>> > >>>> Please review carefully and let us know if the output is acceptable or > >>>> if any updates are needed. <em> is used as follows (1x each): > >>>> > >>>> <em>differences</em> > >>>> <em>can</em> > >>>> <em>failed fetch</em> > >>>> --> > >>> > >>> Yes, all good. > >>> > >>>> 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. 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. > >>>> --> > >>> > >>> Upon re-reading the document, I did not see any instances of potentially > >>> problematic language. > >>> > >>>> Thank you. > >>> > >>> Thank you!!! > >>> > >>> Kind regards, > >>> > >>> Job > >>> > >> > > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
