Hi Sandy, all, These changes are complete:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix Note: There appears to be a small typo in the registry name in Section 6.1.2: "See the IPFIX MPLS label types" should be "See the IPFIX MPLS label type" (without the "s" in type, as listed in the registry). Please let me know if anything was missed (apologies in advance). Thanks, Sabrina On Mon Feb 10 18:29:57 2025, sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org wrote: > Hi IANA, > > We have updated the NEW text to refer to registry names with a [URL] > to the registry group per our earlier discussion. Please review and > update the related registries and let us know if you have any > questions. > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710-rfcdiff.html (side-by-side > view) > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/sg > > > > On Feb 6, 2025, at 9:53 AM, Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc- > > editor.org> wrote: > > > > 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
