Hi, first to all, but especially to Megan and Michael a very big thank you!
I am fine with the edits and the current versions and authorise publication of RFC-to-be 9623. AVE! Philipp > On 21. Dec 2024, at 03:15, Megan Ferguson <mfergu...@amsl.com> wrote: > > Michael, > > Thanks for sending. We have updated and moved RFC-to-be 9622 to AUTH48-DONE > to await the other two documents. > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor/mf > > >> On Dec 20, 2024, at 6:20 PM, Michael Welzl <mich...@ifi.uio.no> wrote: >> >> I see that 9622 lacks my approval: I’m ok eith the latest changes and >> approve publication! >> >> Sent from my phone >> >>> Am 21.12.2024 um 02:55 schrieb Megan Ferguson <mfergu...@amsl.com>: >>> >>> Greetings, >>> >>> Just a final reminder for the year that this document set awaits author >>> actions. See the email thread below as well as the AUTH48 status page: >>> >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C508 >>> >>> Note that time is running out to move forward with a 2024 publication date >>> due to holidays etc. Please contact us at your earliest convenience with >>> approvals and/or updates. >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> RFC Editor/mf >>> >>>> On Dec 20, 2024, at 11:04 AM, Megan Ferguson <mfergu...@amsl.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> > > AVE! Philipp S. Tiesel / phils… -- {phils}--->---(ph...@in-panik.de)--->---(http://phils.in-panik.de)----, wenn w eine aube ist dn man au dran dre en | o Schr an muss hc h (Kurt Schwitters) | :wq! <----(phone: +49-179-6737439)---<---(jabber: ph...@in-panik.de)----'
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
