Thanks for your quick reply, Benoit. Your approval has been noted and we will continue with publication shortly.
Thanks, RFC Editor/sg > On Feb 6, 2025, at 9:44 AM, Benoit Claise <benoit.cla...@huawei.com> wrote: > > Approved. > > Thanks, Benoit > > > On 2/6/2025 6:32 PM, Sandy Ginoza wrote: >> Hi Med, Benoit, >> >> Med, thanks for catching those mistaken updates in the OLD text - they have >> been reverted. With this update, we believe you approve the RFC for >> publication, so we have noted your approval on the AUTH48 page >> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9710>. >> >> Related to “subregistry” - we have all instances of “sub” in the NEW text. >> >> Benoit, please review and let us know if any additional updates are needed >> or if you approve the RFC for publication. >> >> The current files are available here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710.xml >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710.txt >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710.html >> >> >> Diffs showing most recent updates only: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710-lastdiff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) >> >> AUTH48 diffs: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710-auth48diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by >> side) >> >> Comprehensive diffs: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710-diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> >> Thank you, >> RFC Editor/sg >> >> >> >>> On Feb 6, 2025, at 2:09 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: >>> >>> Re-, >>> The except below is about 6.12.2, not 6.12.1 ;-) >>> It is better to use the full diff to see the change I was referring to: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710-diff.html. >>> For subregistry/registry comment, I thought we are OK given that this was >>> prefixed with “previously”. >>> That’s said I agree with you that the use in the registry should be >>> consistent. There shouldn’t be any occurrence of “subregistry” when the >>> changes in RFC9710 are implemented. >>> Cheers, >>> Med >>> De : Benoit Claise <benoit.claise=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> >>> Envoyé : jeudi 6 février 2025 10:45 >>> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>; Sandy >>> Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> >>> Cc : RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; i...@iana.org; >>> opsawg-...@ietf.org; opsawg-cha...@ietf.org; thomas.g...@swisscom.com; >>> Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com>; >>> auth48archive@rfc-editor.org; pait...@ciena.com; me >>> <benoit.cla...@huawei.com> >>> Objet : Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9710 <draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-fixes-12> for >>> your review >>> >>> Dear all, Med, >>> >>> On 2/6/2025 8:03 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: >>> Hi Sandy, all, >>> Thank you for taking care of this. >>> ACK to remove the note for item 9. >>> The latest changes look great, except the ones made to "7.3.1 ": these >>> should be reverted back as that text echoes what was changed. BTW, a >>> similar revert back is needed to Section 6.12.1. >>> Which change(s) exactly in 6.12.1? >>> <image001.png> >>> >>> In this document, there is a consistent change from subregistry to >>> registry, so I guess we don't want to go back to this. >>> Btw, IANA, I still see a subregistry instance in the NEW text in section >>> 6.14.2. That's mistake, right? >>> >>> Regards, Benoit >>> >>> Assuming these changes are implemented, I approve the publication of the >>> document. >>> Cheers, >>> Med >>> >>> ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ >>> _ >>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations >>> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc >>> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu >>> ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler >>> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages >>> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, >>> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou >>> falsifie. Merci. >>> >>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged >>> information that may be protected by law; >>> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. >>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and >>> delete this message and its attachments. >>> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been >>> modified, changed or falsified. >>> Thank you. >>> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
