Hi, I am fine with the current state of the document. Sorry for the late reply, filters gone bad.
Best regards, Dmitry On Thu, Feb 13, 2025, 08:29 Madison Church <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > > This is a friendly reminder that we have yet to hear back from you > regarding this document’s readiness for publication. > > Please review the AUTH48 status page ( > http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9696) for further information as well > as the previous messages in the AUTH48 thread. We have also pasted the > updated files below for convenience. > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9696.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9696.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9696.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9696.xml > > The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9696-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9696-rfcdiff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9696-auth48diff.html > > Once we receive your approval, we will move this document forward in the > publication process. > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/mc > > > On Feb 6, 2025, at 2:46 PM, Madison Church <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > > > > Hi Tony, > > > > Thank you for your reply. We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 > status page (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9696). > > > > Once we receive approval from Dmitry, we will move this document forward > in the publication process. > > > > Thank you, > > RFC Editor/mc > > > >> On Feb 6, 2025, at 3:31 AM, Antoni Przygienda <p...@juniper.net> wrote: > >> > >> I read it (finally) and mostly fine, observations that are all minor > >> > >> > >> * ZTP acronym expansion removed, I think in first instance it’s > helpful, same for ToF unless it’s introduced in the glossary > >> * it’s rather Key-Value than Key-value or key-value IME > >> * the pure default route, there is only one so probably the definite > article is superfluous * a “Multiple Plane_s_ Miscabling” > >> * “but the operational reasons to reach” , looks like “the” is > superfluous > >> * > >> Please incorporate if they make sense or otherwise I’m ok with current > content > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> — Tony > >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
