Dear RFC Editor staff, I agree with all the changes in all the files. I also agree with this comment from Colin: *** RFC 9621 Section 4.1.4, first paragraph (“Initiate”) ends with “occurs in response to the calling Initiate” (changed from “…to the Initiate call”) but should perhaps say “…in response to calling Initiate”? ***
and the typo fix from Reese in 9622: *** " in response to Abort ations. “ *** and the suggestion to capitalize “Protocol options” in this text in 9623 from Reese: *** ""Protocol options are next checked in order. “ *** Furthermore, your email below asks what we should do with " Local Endpoint: The Local Endpoint.” in the glossary list, section 1.4, of 9621. I see that I shouldn’t have applied capitalization in this particular line. I suggest to revert it, i.e.: OLD: Local Endpoint: The Local Endpoint. NEW: Local Endpoint: The local Endpoint. I am now waiting for answers to my answers back to Reese regarding the capitalization of “Cellular” and “Protocol Instance”. Once we have agreed on what to do with these cases (possibly affecting other similar ones), I will apply all of these changes to the XML files (the latest version you sent) and send them back to you. Cheers, Michael > On Dec 19, 2024, at 1:13 AM, Megan Ferguson <mfergu...@amsl.com> wrote: > > Michael, > > Thank you for sending along these files and the guidance! We have sent > replies to the individual document threads and copied them below for > everyone’s convenience. > > We believe all of our queries have been addressed for the documents in this > cluster at this time. > > The AUTH48 status page for the entire cluster is viewable here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C508 > > Please see further instruction and comments in the per-document messages > (copied below). > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor/mf > > > —--- > Michael, > > Thank you for sending along the files updated with the capitalization > guidance in response to our cluster-wide query. We have adopted these files > and posted them below. > > We had one follow up when reviewing this file: > > -with the updates to capitalization, Section 1.4 (Glossary of Key Terms) now > contains the following text: > > Local Endpoint: The Local Endpoint. > > Please consider if this redundant text appears as desired or if it should be > updated or deleted from the list (we see Remote Endpoint contains a fair > amount of description in comparison). > > Please review the files carefully as we do not make changes after > publication. > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9621.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9621.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9621.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9621.xml > > The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9621-diff.html (comprehensive diff) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9621-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes > only) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9621-lastdiff.html (last to current > version only) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9621-lastrfcdiff.html (ditto but > rfcdiff) > > Please contact us with any further updates/questions/comments you may have. > > We will await approvals from each of the parties listed on the AUTH48 status > page prior to moving forward to publication. > > The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9621 > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor/mf > > —--- > > Michael, > > Thank you for sending along the files updated with the capitalization > guidance in response to our cluster-wide query. We have adopted these files > and posted them below. > > Note: We have made a single update to include a comma in the second sentence > of the second paragraph in Section 9.1.3.5. > > Please review the files carefully as we do not make changes after > publication. > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9622.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9622.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9622.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9622.xml > > The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9622-diff.html (comprehensive diff) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9622-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes > only) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9622-lastdiff.html (last to current > version only) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9622-lastrfcdiff.html (ditto but > rfcdiff) > > Please contact us with any further updates/questions/comments you may have. > > We will await approvals from each of the parties listed on the AUTH48 status > page prior to moving forward to publication. > > The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9622 > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor/mf > —---- > > Michael, > > Thank you for sending along the files updated with the capitalization > guidance in response to our cluster-wide query. We have adopted these files > and posted them below. Note that we have made no changes to the file > submitted by Michael. > > Please review the files carefully as we do not make changes after > publication. > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623.xml > > The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623-diff.html (comprehensive diff) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes > only) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623-lastdiff.html (last to current > version only) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623-lastrfcdiff.html (ditto but > rfcdiff) > > Please contact us with any further updates/questions/comments you may have. > > We will await approvals from each of the parties listed on the AUTH48 status > page prior to moving forward to publication. > > The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9623 > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor/mf > > > > > >> On Dec 17, 2024, at 11:34 AM, Michael Welzl <mich...@ifi.uio.no> wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> I am now finished with the capitalization task for the entire cluster. I’m >> attaching “before” and “after” versions of the XML files (filenames >> “-OLD.xml” and “-NEW.xml”). >> I would like to say that I approve publication (as Megan wrote, please see >> here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C508 - everyone needs to approve >> everything so this can go ahead!), but this update was so big and I think >> it’s important to get this right due to our special use of capitals to >> indicate the abstract element offered to the application, versus small >> letters to indicate elements related to the transport protocols below. >> >> So, I would like to give it 1-2 days, in the hope that some of my co-authors >> here take a look at the diffs and either make corrections or say that they >> approve. Let’s get a few approvals from you others, and then let’s quickly >> all approve, please. I believe that this is the very last thing we have to >> do here! >> >> >> TO MY CLUSTER CO-AUTHORS: >> >> The best way to look at these files is to upload them here: >> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff >> >> Also, I think it’s fair to say that, at this point, *each and every one of >> you* owes me a beer :-))) >> >> >> Cheers, >> Michael >> >> <rfc9621-NEW.xml> >> <rfc9621-OLD.xml> >> <rfc9622-NEW.xml> >> <rfc9622-OLD.xml> >> <rfc9623-NEW.xml> >> <rfc9623-OLD.xml> >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
