Michael and Mirja, Thanks for replies and explanations. We have updated the files and rolled these changes into the current versions of the diffs so as to keep access to the previous capping updates and all of the capping changes together where possible (to hopefully keep everyone in the loop).
Notes: -Mirja’s first point that Michael suggests leaving as was: we have made no changes as this sounds acceptable to Mirja and Michael’s preference. -9622: we lowercased “Cellular data plan” in one instance. -9623: we updated to use only “policy” instead of “System Policy”. -9621: we have lowercased a single instance of “Message” and removed “Properties” as seemed agreeable to both Mirja and Michael. Please review and confirm that these updates appear as desired. The AUTH48 status page for the entire cluster is viewable here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C508 Each document’s updated files and diffs are available as listed below: 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) The following diff contains the capping changes from the last two rounds together: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9621caps-diff.html —— 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) —— 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) The following diff contains the capping changes from the last two rounds together: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9623caps-diff.html Please review carefully and let us know if any further changes are necessary. Thank you. RFC Editor/mf > On Dec 20, 2024, at 10:08 AM, Michael Welzl <mich...@ifi.uio.no> wrote: > > Hi Mirja, > > Many thanks for taking a careful look! I’m sorry, I can’t do any more > updates for a while now - perhaps someone else could have a go at these? > > Answers below: > > >> On Dec 20, 2024, at 8:43 PM, Mirja Kuehlewind >> <mirja.kuehlew...@ericsson.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Michael, >> >> thanks for the huge amount of work! >> >> Sorry that I have to say this but I'm not fully convinced regarding the >> capitalization of Connection, Property and Messages. I think I would have >> preference to keep them lower case in most of the cases, and use upper case >> really only if a very specific "implementation instance" is meant. However, >> I can fully live with the current approach now as long as it is unified. > > First and foremost, I wanted to minimize changes, or at least stay true to > the original intention. I think what I did follows that - we have long used > capitalization of these terms to distinguish between the “upper layer” and > the “lower layer”. For Connection, the -arch draft (9621) even explicitly > says this, in two places (search for “capital”). > So I think we should keep these as they are. > > >> Still, I have a few comments though where I find something not completely >> right in my review: >> >> First, I agree with Reese on the use of " Cellular data plan" in RFC9622. >> This is just an example and normal word in a sentence and does not relate to >> any property in this occurrence and therefore should be lower case. > > As I explained, I did this to follow what already was the common style in the > documents; but this is totally fine with me, and I can’t imagine anyone > strongly disagreeing. Let’s lower-case it. > > >> For RFC9623, I did struggle with this occurrence of "System policy" (this >> sentence is twice in the doc): >> >> "Similar to a derived endpoint, the paths should be ranked based on >> preference, System Policy, and performance." >> >> Because it's listed here between preference and performance I think it >> should be lower case. Or you could even remove the word "System" and only >> use policy as an undefined term to avoid confusion. > > Ok for me to change. > > >> And for RFC9621, I have these two cases: >> >> "The Socket API provides a Message interface for datagram protocols" >> >> It's _a_ undefined message interface. Here message interface is just used as >> a specific kind of interface and not _the_ message interface we use in TAPS. > > Good catch, I agree. > > >> "This automated selection is constrained by the Properties and preferences >> expressed by the application and requires applications to explicitly set >> Properties that define any necessary constraints on protocol, path, and >> interface selection." >> >> I would either lower-case "Properties" when noted together with >> "preferences" or remove it, because preferences are expressed by Properties. > > I don’t really see the problem here; I’m against lower-casing “Properties”, > but removing it would be okay. > > Cheers, > Michael > > >> >> Thanks again. Just my 2c... >> >> Mirja >> >> >> >> On 20.12.24, 04:52, "Michael Welzl" <mich...@ifi.uio.no >> <mailto:mich...@ifi.uio.no>> wrote: >> >> >> Hi ! >> >> >> Here come the new versions! >> >> >> Once these changes are incorporated, I approve publication wherever it’s >> missing (as a co-author: RFCs 9622 and 9623). >> >> >> Cheers, >> Michael >> >> >> >> >>> On Dec 20, 2024, at 12:00 AM, Megan Ferguson <mfergu...@amsl.com >>> <mailto:mfergu...@amsl.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Michael, >>> >>>> I will apply all of these changes to the XML files (the latest version you >>>> sent) and send them back to you. >>> >>> Excellent. We will await the files updated with all of the changes before >>> taking any action on our end. >>> >>> As to the get-together: thanks for the invite! You will have to reach out >>> to whoever ends up at the RFC Editor desk at IETF if you would like help >>> celebrating this accomplishment :). We were happy to do our part and very >>> much appreciate your time and attention in getting this cluster ready for >>> publication (no easy feat on Michael’s part)! >>> >>> RFC Editor/mf >> >> >> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
