Hi Brian, Thank you for noting the issue in the table; it has been corrected. With this update, we believe you approve the RFC for publication. We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 page <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9713> and we will continue with publication shortly.
Thanks, RFC Editor/sg > On Jan 13, 2025, at 9:38 AM, Brian Sipos <brian.sipos+i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Editors, > All of the text updates look good to me and I think the text is ready for > publication. > > There is one peculiar visual aspect in the text form of Table 1, the row for > value 3 has a divider between Description and Reference columns but rows for > 5 through 64383 do not have a column divider. The HTML form doesn't show > separators between fields so doesn't have this visual difference. I don't > have a strong opinion on what is "right" so if this is expected then no more > edits are needed. > > Thanks, > Brian S. > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 11:34 AM Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > Hi Brian, > > Thank you for your reply. We have updated the document as described below. > The current files are available here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9713.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9713.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9713.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9713.html > > AUTH48 diff: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9713-auth48diff.html > > Comprehensive diffs: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9713-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9713-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Please review and let us know if additional updates are needed or if you > approve the RFC for publication > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/sg > > > > > > On Jan 10, 2025, at 12:36 PM, Brian Sipos <brian.sipos+i...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > Editors, > > Thank you for your work so far. Responses to the individual questions are > > here numbered: > > > > 1) You are correct that there is no intention that an operating BPA > > software is not expected to actually use the IANA registry in-place. The > > registry is for documentation of the code points. So I think your suggested > > edit is good. > > > > 2) Your interpretation is correct; your suggested edit is more accurate but > > I will prepend some text to make the citation not treated as part of the > > sentence. > > > > Section 1 > > OLD: > > The earlier Bundle Protocol (BP) Version 6 (BPv6) defined an IANA > > registry for Administrative Record type code points under [IANA-BP]. > > NEW: > > An earlier specification [RFC7116] defined an IANA registry for > > Administrative Record type code points [IANA-BP] for use with the > > Bundle Protocol (BP) Version 6 (BPv6) [RFC5050]. > > > > 3) Your interpretation is correct; your suggested edit is more clear and > > looks good. > > > > 4) Your suggestion B seems more understandable and looks like a good edit. > > > > 5) Yes, this single use of the abbreviation can be expanded. > > > > 6) I'm trying to find some example of similar overloaded code point tables > > outside of the Bundle Protocol registry group, but failing to do so. There > > is no implication that assignments in that range need to apply to both > > version 6 and 7. Other tables in the Bundle Protocol registry group leave > > the version column empty for the unassigned values, so it's probably best > > to do so here also. > > > > Table 1 > > OLD: > > | 6,7 | 3 | Unassigned | | > > | 6,7 | 5 to 15 | Unassigned | | > > NEW: > > | | 3 | Unassigned | | > > | | 5 to 15 | Unassigned | | > > > > Related to this table, I see that there have been some edits to replace "X > > to Y" numbering with "X-Y". Is this the consistent way to indicate this in > > registries? I was trying to avoid using the hyphen to not confuse it with a > > negative sign, but whatever is consistent is the right way. > > > > 7) Yes, keeping lower case for consistency is a good edit. > > > > 8) This section should be removed entirely. > > > > 9) I have reviewed the Inclusive Language style guide and I do not believe > > that any other edits are needed. > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 2:47 AM <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] Initially, we found this text unclear because we questioned > > whether the BPv7 agent was using the IANA registry to document > > Administrative Record types or whether the agent was using the IANA > > registry itself. We believe both may be true. Please review whether the > > following possible update is accurate. > > > > Original: > > This document updates RFC 9171 to clarify that a Bundle Protocol > > Version 7 agent is intended to use an IANA registry for > > Administrative Record types. It also makes a code point reservations > > for private and experimental use. > > > > Perhaps: > > This document updates RFC 9171 to clarify that Bundle Protocol Version 7 > > agents are expected to use the IANA "Bundle Administrative Record Types" > > registry to identify and document Administrative Record types. This > > document also designates code points for Private and Experimental Use. > > --> > > > > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] As we believe the "earlier Bundle Protocol (BP) Version 6 > > (BPv6)" refers to the version specified in RFC 5050, and because the > > relevant registry seems to have been created per RFC 7116, we suggest the > > following update. Please review and let us know if this update is > > acceptable. > > > > Original: > > The earlier Bundle Protocol (BP) Version 6 (BPv6) defined an IANA > > registry for Administrative Record type code points under [IANA-BP]. > > > > Perhaps: > > [RFC7116] defined an IANA registry for Administrative Record type code > > points [IANA-BP] for use with the Bundle Protocol (BP) > > Version 6 (BPv6) [RFC5050]. > > --> > > > > > > 3) <!-- [rfced] Does "overlapping code points" mean code points that are > > used for both BPv6 and BPv7? For clarity, please consider whether the > > following correctly conveys the intended meaning. > > > > Original: > > This document does not specify how BPv6 and BPv7 can interoperate for > > overlapping code points or how a specific code point is to be > > interpreted either similarly or differently between Bundle Protocol > > versions. It is up to each individual Administrative Record type > > specification to define how it relates to each BP version. > > > > Perhaps: > > This document does not specify how BPv6 and BPv7 can interoperate > > when both use the same code points or how a specific code point is to be > > interpreted either similarly or differently by Bundle Protocol > > versions. The specification for each Administrative Record type is to > > define how the Administrative Record type relates to each BP version. > > --> > > > > > > 4) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble parsing this text. Please clarify. > > > > Original: > > Instead of using the list of types in Section 6.1 of [RFC9171], a > > BPv7 administrative element SHALL interpret administrative record > > type code values in accordance with the IANA "Bundle Administrative > > > > Record Types" registry under [IANA-BP] for entries having a "Bundle > > > > Protocol Version" of 7. > > > > Perhaps A: > > Instead of using the list of types in Section 6.1 of [RFC9171], a > > BPv7 administrative element SHALL use administrative record > > type code values as registered in the IANA "Bundle Administrative > > > > Record Types" registry [IANA-BP]. BPv7 administrative elements > > may use the code points marked with "7" in the Bundle Protocol > > Version column. > > > > Or perhaps B: > > Instead of using the list of types in Section 6.1 of [RFC9171], a > > BPv7 administrative element SHALL determine which administrative > > record type code values can be used by the "7" noted in the Bundle > > Protocol Version column of the IANA "Bundle Administrative Record Types" > > registry [IANA-BP]. > > --> > > > > > > 5) <!-- [rfced] This is the only occurrence of BPA. May we change this to > > "bundle protocol agent"? > > > > Original: > > The processing of a received administrative record ADU > > does not affect the fact that the bundle itself was delivered to the > > administrative element or any related BPA processing of (e.g. status > > reports on) the enveloping bundle. > > --> > > > > > > 6) <!-- [rfced] Because values 3 and 5-15 are unassigned, is it correct for > > the Bundle Protocol Versions to be noted as 6,7? Does this imply that 6 > > and 7 must apply to future assignments of those values (i.e., 6,7 apply to > > unassigned values defined by BPv6, and 7 (only) applies to all other future > > assignments as values 16+ are defined for BPv7)? > > > > >From Table 1: > > | 6,7 | 3 | Unassigned | | > > | 6,7 | 5 to 15 | Unassigned | | > > --> > > > > > > 7) <!-- [rfced] Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to > > be used inconsistently. May we lowercase these for consistency with RFC > > 9171, which seems to use lower case except when referring to the name of > > the IANA registry. > > > > Administrative Record types > > administrative record type code values > > Administrative Record type code points > > administrative record type code > > administrative record ADU > > --> > > > > > > 8) <!-- [rfced] It appears that there is no text in the Acknowledgments > > section. Would you like to add text or remove the section entirely? > > --> > > > > > > 9) <!-- [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. > > --> > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > RFC Editor > > > > > > On Jan 6, 2025, at 11:43 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > > > Updated 2025/01/06 > > > > 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/rfc9713.xml > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9713.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9713.pdf > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9713.txt > > > > Diff file of the text: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9713-diff.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9713-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > > > Diff of the XML: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9713-xmldiff1.html > > > > > > Tracking progress > > ----------------- > > > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9713 > > > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > > > RFC Editor > > > > -------------------------------------- > > RFC9713 (draft-ietf-dtn-bpv7-admin-iana-04) > > > > Title : Bundle Protocol Version 7 Administrative Record Types > > Registry > > Author(s) : B. Sipos > > WG Chair(s) : Edward J. Birrane, Rick Taylor > > 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
