All, We have now received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9717
Thank you for your attention and guidance during the AUTH48 process. We will move this document forward in the publication process at this time. Sincerely, RFC Editor/st > On Jan 23, 2025, at 10:12 AM, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) > <rfc-...@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > I approve as well. > Eliot > On 23.01.2025 17:02, Tony Li wrote: >> Approved >> >> T >> >> >> >>> On Jan 23, 2025, at 7:06 AM, Sarah Tarrant - starrant at >>> staff.rfc-editor.org <mailforwa...@cloudmails.net> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Tony and Eliot, >>> >>> Thank you for your replies. We have updated the document accordingly. >>> >>> Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not >>> make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any >>> further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form. >>> We will await final approvals prior to moving forward in the publication >>> process. >>> >>> The updated files have been posted here (please refresh): >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9717.txt >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9717.pdf >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9717.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9717.xml >>> >>> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9717-diff.html (comprehensive diff) >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9717-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes >>> only) >>> >>> Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the >>> most recent version. >>> >>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9717 >>> >>> Thank you, >>> RFC Editor/st >>> >>> >>>> On Jan 22, 2025, at 4:07 PM, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) >>>> <rfc-...@rfc-editor.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Thanks. Sarah, can you propose appropriate changes? >>>> Eliot >>>> ps: Tony, I appreciate your position. Let's have a drink at an appropriate >>>> time about this one. >>>> >>>>> On 22.01.2025 22:39, Tony Li wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Jan 22, 2025, at 9:24 AM, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) >>>>>> - rfc-ise at rfc-editor.org <mailforwa...@cloudmails.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I have one more suggestion for Section 2.3, to address inclusive wording: >>>>>> s/traditional/typical or typical terrestrial/ >>>>>> Tony would one of those work for you? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I have no problems with real inclusivity issues. >>>>> >>>>> However, this is not one of them. Tradition is not an evil word. Changing >>>>> every instance is simply overkill and unnecessary. Let’s not cancel all >>>>> of our vocabulary. >>>>> >>>>> That said, I’m fine with ’typical’, ’typical terrestrial’ or even >>>>> ‘legacy’. >>>>> >>>>> Tony >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
