Hi Paul, Authors, Thanks for checking in!
> On Feb 10, 2025, at 1:54 PM, Aitken, Paul <pait...@ciena.com> wrote: > > 1. Has IANA updated the registries from the RFC-to-be? It looks like updates > from section 4 have already been applied, but the updates in sections 5 and 6 > have not. IANA has now completed the updates. > 2. In 6.12.2., is this bracket useful? "(previously the > "informationElementDataType" registry)". Same in 6.14.2: "(previously the > "informationElementsUnits" registry)". The previous name is really only > relevant if the reader has an old pointer using that name. I had a tough time following the OLD/NEW text without understanding the registry names. I find it beneficial to clearly document the change for the reader, though I can see how it may not be helpful for the registry text itself. Perhaps we could add a note to Section 6.12. informationElementDataType? Original: 6.12. informationElementDataType Perhaps: 6.12. informationElementDataType Note that the "informationElementDataType” registry is renamed as the "IPFIX Information Element Data Types” registry. Then we would remove the following from the NEW text: (previously the "informationElementDataType" registry) Thanks, RFC Editor/sg > > > P. > > On 10/02/25 18:28, Sandy Ginoza 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710-diff.html__;!!OSsGDw!Oa-ZD3kUOS8_Xhy-5sbrnTfX6gvL0hxBt9ygEHUXgq2uE6mNnUZTJx2AyZKPSypkZI8ZOzHpeD-NJ8XmTHugKQ$ >> [rfc-editor[.]org] >> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710-rfcdiff.html__;!!OSsGDw!Oa-ZD3kUOS8_Xhy-5sbrnTfX6gvL0hxBt9ygEHUXgq2uE6mNnUZTJx2AyZKPSypkZI8ZOzHpeD-NJ8V50RN3BA$ >> [rfc-editor[.]org] (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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9710__;!!OSsGDw!Oa-ZD3kUOS8_Xhy-5sbrnTfX6gvL0hxBt9ygEHUXgq2uE6mNnUZTJx2AyZKPSypkZI8ZOzHpeD-NJ8XELp8zlQ$ >>>>> [rfc-editor[.]org]> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>>> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710.xml__;!!OSsGDw!Oa-ZD3kUOS8_Xhy-5sbrnTfX6gvL0hxBt9ygEHUXgq2uE6mNnUZTJx2AyZKPSypkZI8ZOzHpeD-NJ8XfXZvLMw$ >>>>> [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>> >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710.txt__;!!OSsGDw!Oa-ZD3kUOS8_Xhy-5sbrnTfX6gvL0hxBt9ygEHUXgq2uE6mNnUZTJx2AyZKPSypkZI8ZOzHpeD-NJ8XamMk7xA$ >>>>> [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>> >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710.pdf__;!!OSsGDw!Oa-ZD3kUOS8_Xhy-5sbrnTfX6gvL0hxBt9ygEHUXgq2uE6mNnUZTJx2AyZKPSypkZI8ZOzHpeD-NJ8VX7Jehxg$ >>>>> [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>> >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710.html__;!!OSsGDw!Oa-ZD3kUOS8_Xhy-5sbrnTfX6gvL0hxBt9ygEHUXgq2uE6mNnUZTJx2AyZKPSypkZI8ZOzHpeD-NJ8VXbGZwhw$ >>>>> [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Diffs showing most recent updates only: >>>>> >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710-lastdiff.html__;!!OSsGDw!Oa-ZD3kUOS8_Xhy-5sbrnTfX6gvL0hxBt9ygEHUXgq2uE6mNnUZTJx2AyZKPSypkZI8ZOzHpeD-NJ8WOWfhmrw$ >>>>> [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>> >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710-lastrfcdiff.html__;!!OSsGDw!Oa-ZD3kUOS8_Xhy-5sbrnTfX6gvL0hxBt9ygEHUXgq2uE6mNnUZTJx2AyZKPSypkZI8ZOzHpeD-NJ8VmaAOzbw$ >>>>> [rfc-editor[.]org] (side by side) >>>>> >>>>> AUTH48 diffs: >>>>> >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710-auth48diff.html__;!!OSsGDw!Oa-ZD3kUOS8_Xhy-5sbrnTfX6gvL0hxBt9ygEHUXgq2uE6mNnUZTJx2AyZKPSypkZI8ZOzHpeD-NJ8W82u381g$ >>>>> [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>> >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710-auth48rfcdiff.html__;!!OSsGDw!Oa-ZD3kUOS8_Xhy-5sbrnTfX6gvL0hxBt9ygEHUXgq2uE6mNnUZTJx2AyZKPSypkZI8ZOzHpeD-NJ8UQq_-RHA$ >>>>> [rfc-editor[.]org] (side by side) >>>>> >>>>> Comprehensive diffs: >>>>> >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710-diff.html__;!!OSsGDw!Oa-ZD3kUOS8_Xhy-5sbrnTfX6gvL0hxBt9ygEHUXgq2uE6mNnUZTJx2AyZKPSypkZI8ZOzHpeD-NJ8XmTHugKQ$ >>>>> [rfc-editor[.]org] >>>>> >>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710-rfcdiff.html__;!!OSsGDw!Oa-ZD3kUOS8_Xhy-5sbrnTfX6gvL0hxBt9ygEHUXgq2uE6mNnUZTJx2AyZKPSypkZI8ZOzHpeD-NJ8V50RN3BA$ >>>>> [rfc-editor[.]org] (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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9710-diff.html__;!!OSsGDw!Oa-ZD3kUOS8_Xhy-5sbrnTfX6gvL0hxBt9ygEHUXgq2uE6mNnUZTJx2AyZKPSypkZI8ZOzHpeD-NJ8XmTHugKQ$ >>>>>> [rfc-editor[.]org]. >>>>>> 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
