Sorry for missing this. I've reviewed the full AUTH48 diff, and it looks good to me. Approved for publication.
-MSK, ART AD On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 11:24 AM Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > Hi Yeshwant, Murray, > > We are waiting on the following before continuing with publication: > > 1. Murray’s approval. Murray, would you please review the changes in the > AUTH48 diff and let us know if you approve? They are likely ok, but I’d > prefer to err on the side of caution. > > > > > > >> AUTH48 diffs (highlights recent updates): > > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695-auth48diff.html > > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695-auth48rfcdiff.html (side > by side) > > > > 2. RFC-to-be 9694 to complete AUTH48 (see > https://www.rfc-editor.org/staff/auth48_edit.php?docnum=9694). This > document normatively references RFC 9694, so it cannot be published until > RFC 9694 is also ready to be published. > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thanks, > RFC Editor/sg > > > > On Feb 6, 2025, at 10:01 PM, Yeshwant Muthusamy <yeshw...@yeshvik.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi Rebecca, > > > > What is the status of this document? Are we still waiting on Murray's > approval? > > > > Thanks, > > Yeshwant > > > > > > Yeshwant Muthusamy, Ph.D. > > Owner and Principal > > Yeshvik Solutions, LLC > > www.yeshvik.com > > +1 469-854-9836 > > yeshw...@yeshvik.com > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 11:23 AM Rebecca VanRheenen < > rvanrhee...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > Hi Yeshwant, Chris, and Murray* > > > > I’ll be helping with this document this week as Sandy is on PTO. > > > > Yeshwant - Thanks for checking in about the status of the document. You > are correct that we have approvals from both you and Chris (I just > forwarded the approval from Chris to the AUTH48 archive). We are now > waiting for approval from Murray (AD). See the AUTH48 status page at < > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9695>. > > > > *Murray - Please review the following and let us know if you approve: > > > > > Hi Murray, > > > > > > Would you please review the changes in the AUTH48 diff and let us know > if you approve? They are likely ok, but I’d prefer to err on the side of > caution. > > > > > >> AUTH48 diffs (highlights recent updates): > > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695-auth48diff.html > > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695-auth48rfcdiff.html (side > by side) > > > > Files: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695.xml > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695.txt > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695.pdf > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695.html > > > > AUTH48 diffs (highlights recent updates): > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695-auth48diff.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695-auth48rfcdiff.html (side > by side) > > > > Comprehensive diffs: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695-diff.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > > > AUTH48 page for this document: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9695 > > > > Thank you, > > RFC Editor/rv > > > > > > > > > On Jan 29, 2025, at 8:00 AM, Yeshwant Muthusamy <yeshw...@yeshvik.com> > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Sandy, > > > > > > Chris tells me that he has sent you his approval. Are we good to go, > or are you still waiting on other approvals? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Yeshwant > > > > > > Yeshwant Muthusamy, Ph.D. > > > Owner and Principal > > > Yeshvik Solutions, LLC > > > www.yeshvik.com > > > +1 469-854-9836 > > > yeshw...@yeshvik.com > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 25, 2025 at 3:44 PM Sandy Ginoza < > sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > > Hi Yeshwant, > > > > > > Apologies for my delayed reply. We have noted your approval on the > AUTH48 page <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9695>. If possible, we > would appreciate a confirmation directly from Chris that the document is > also ready for publication. > > > > > > Thanks for your help! > > > RFC Editor/sg > > > > > > > On Jan 17, 2025, at 8:06 AM, Yeshwant Muthusamy < > yeshw...@yeshvik.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Sandy, > > > > > > > > Chris and I have reviewed the diff files and updates and we are fine > with the final version. > > > > > > > > The document is APPROVED from the authors' perspective. > > > > > > > > Please let me know if there are any other actions for us. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Yeshwant > > > > > > > > Yeshwant Muthusamy, Ph.D. > > > > Owner and Principal > > > > Yeshvik Solutions, LLC > > > > www.yeshvik.com > > > > +1 469-854-9836 > > > > yeshw...@yeshvik.com > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2025, 9:08 PM Sandy Ginoza < > sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Yeshwant, Chris, > > > > > > > > Thank you for your review and for updating the XML. We have updated > the document - thank you for your explanations. Note that we updated the > new references to reflect accurate title information and include additional > author or organization information, as needed. Please review the current > files and let us know if additional updates are needed or if you approve > the RFC for publication. > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695.xml > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695.txt > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695.pdf > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695.html > > > > > > > > AUTH48 diffs (highlights recent updates): > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695-auth48diff.html > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695-auth48rfcdiff.html > (side by side) > > > > > > > > Comprehensive diffs: > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695-diff.html > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695-rfcdiff.html (side by > side) > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > RFC Editor/sg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 15, 2025, at 9:21 AM, Yeshwant Muthusamy < > yeshw...@yeshvik.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Sandy, > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if there is anything else needed from the > authors (Chris and me). We are done with our changes/comments. You should > have the revised XML file that I sent in the previous email. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Yeshwant > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeshwant Muthusamy, Ph.D. > > > > > Owner and Principal > > > > > Yeshvik Solutions, LLC > > > > > www.yeshvik.com > > > > > +1 469-854-9836 > > > > > yeshw...@yeshvik.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 3:17 PM Yeshwant Muthusamy < > yeshw...@yeshvik.com> wrote: > > > > > Sandy, Others, > > > > > > > > > > Attached please find the XML source with the authors' comments and > changes, in response to the comments marked [rfced] by the RFC Editors. > > > > > > > > > > FWIW, we've also included the revised output files (.txt and > .html), generated using xml2rfc -v3, reflecting all the changes made (with > the exception of the deleting the Terminology section - we have left that > for the Editors). > > > > > > > > > > Authors' responses/comments/notes are clearly marked within the > comment sections in the attached XML document. Examples: [AUTHORS' > RESPONSE], [AUTHORS' NOTE], etc. > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if something is unclear or if we have missed > something. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your patience. > > > > > > > > > > Yeshwant > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeshwant Muthusamy, Ph.D. > > > > > Owner and Principal > > > > > Yeshvik Solutions, LLC > > > > > www.yeshvik.com > > > > > +1 469-854-9836 > > > > > yeshw...@yeshvik.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 1:03 PM Sandy Ginoza < > sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > > > > Hi Yeshwant, > > > > > > > > > > We will wait to hear from you and Chris - thank you for the > update. > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > RFC Editor/sg > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 10, 2025, at 10:55 AM, Yeshwant Muthusamy < > yeshw...@yeshvik.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Sandy, > > > > > > > > > > > > I completed my changes/revisions based on the Editors' comments. > I have sent them to my co-author, Chris Ullrich, for his review and > additions, if any (as we are not in the same location). I hope to hear back > from Chris today. We will get back to you as soon as possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your patience. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeshwant > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeshwant Muthusamy, Ph.D. > > > > > > Owner and Principal > > > > > > Yeshvik Solutions, LLC > > > > > > www.yeshvik.com > > > > > > +1 469-854-9836 > > > > > > yeshw...@yeshvik.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 12:51 PM Sandy Ginoza < > sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > > > > > Authors, > > > > > > > > > > > > We do not believe we have heard from you regarding the questions > below. Please let us know how we may resolve the items listed below. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > RFC Editor/sg > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 23, 2024, at 11:12 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authors, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve > (as necessary) > > > > > > > the following questions, which are also in the XML file. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that > appear in > > > > > > > the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] We do believe the capitalized keywords are > used in the RFC. > > > > > > > Please review and let us know if any of the capitalized > keywords should be > > > > > > > used. Otherwise, we will remove the Terminology section and > related > > > > > > > references. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > > > 1.1. Terminology > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The keywords MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, > > > > > > > SHOULD,SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, NOT RECOMMENDED, MAY, and > OPTIONAL in > > > > > > > this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 > [RFC2119] > > > > > > > [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, > as shown > > > > > > > here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) <!-- [rfced] Would you like to include references for the > sales data > > > > > > > listed? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > > > * iPhone (206+ million units sold in 2020): native support > for > > > > > > > haptic encoded data > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Android (1.38+ billion units sold in 2020): API support > of haptic > > > > > > > buffers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * W3C (HTML vibration API [W3C-Vibration]): Optionally > supported in > > > > > > > mobile web browsers. W3C has also defined vibration > extensions > > > > > > > for gamepads [W3C-Gamepad] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Game consoles (39+ million units sold in 2019): MS Xbox, > Sony > > > > > > > PlayStation, Nintendo Switch, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * XR devices (9+ million units sold in 2019): OpenXR haptic > API > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4) <!-- [rfced] May we expand CE as Customer Edge? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > > > Since they represent the majority of CE devices, a strong > > > > > > > case can be made for 'haptics' as a top-level media type. > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) <!-- [rfced] The text indicates the subtypes have not been > > > > > > > registered by IANA, but ivs is being registered by this > document. Please > > > > > > > consider whether updates are needed. Is it correct that ivs > is the only > > > > > > > type mentioned in Section 2.5 being registered at this time? > > > > > > > Note: likely different, but we see ogg has been registered as > an > > > > > > > application subtype (see > https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/ogg). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > > > While these subtypes have *not* been registered with IANA or > > > > > > > standardized (yet), the prevalence of these haptic data > formats in a > > > > > > > large number of devices around the world, pre-dating the > > > > > > > standardization of haptic tracks in ISOBMFF, provides a > compelling > > > > > > > argument for 'haptics' to be designated as a top-level media > type: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps remove mention of "not been registered with IANA? > > > > > > > While these subtypes have *not* been standardized (yet), > > > > > > > the prevalence of these haptic data formats in a > > > > > > > large number of devices around the world, pre-dating the > > > > > > > standardization of haptic tracks in ISOBMFF, provides a > compelling > > > > > > > argument for 'haptics' to be designated as a top-level media > type: > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 6) <!-- [rfced] hmpg and hjif are being registered by this > document. > > > > > > > Please consider how this text can be updated for accuracy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > > > These > > > > > > > codes are not registered yet, but the plan is indeed to > standardize > > > > > > > these haptic coding formats in the near future. Once > standardized, > > > > > > > these types should also be registered as subtypes of the > 'haptics' > > > > > > > top-level media type: > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7) <!-- [rfced] For ease of the reader, we have updated > "FourCC codes" as > > > > > > > "FourCCs (four-character codes)". Alternatively, may we > replace "FourCC" > > > > > > > with "four-character codes", because this is the only place > FourCC is used? > > > > > > > Please review. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > > > The MPEG ISOBMFF proposal included an informative annex of > known > > > > > > > haptic coding formats with proposed FourCC codes for them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Current: > > > > > > > The MPEG ISOBMFF proposal included an informative annex of > known > > > > > > > haptic coding formats with proposed FourCCs (four-character > codes) > > > > > > > for them. > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 8) <!-- [rfced] Should "URLL" be "URLLC"? If correct, may we > expand URLLC > > > > > > > as "Ultra-Reliable Low-Latency Communication (URLLC)"? If > not, please > > > > > > > indicate how URLL should be expanded. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > > > * IEEE P1918.1.1 vibrotactile coding standard > [IEEE-P191811] being > > > > > > > developed under the IEEE Tactile Internet initiative as > part of > > > > > > > the 5G URLL profile. > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 9) <!-- [rfced] [ISOBMFF-IS] This reference is the most current > > > > > > > version of this standard, but there is a note on this version > that states > > > > > > > "Expected to be replaced by ISO/IEC DIS 14496-12.2 within the > coming > > > > > > > months." Please let us know if publication of this document > should be > > > > > > > delayed until ISO/IEC DIS 14496-12.2 is formally published > > > > > > > (see https://www.iso.org/standard/85596.html). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > > > > [ISOBMFF-IS] > > > > > > > "ISO/IEC 14496-12 (7th Edition) Information > technology — > > > > > > > Coding of audio-visual objects — Part 12: ISO > base media > > > > > > > file format", < > https://www.iso.org/standard/83102.html>. > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 10) <!-- [rfced] [IEEE-P191811] The original URL redirected to > the > > > > > > > search page for IEEE Standards: > https://standards.ieee.org/standard/. > > > > > > > We have updated the reference as described on > > > > > > > https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10555007. The status is > marked as > > > > > > > "Inactive - Draft". Please review and let us know if any > updates are > > > > > > > needed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [IEEE-P191811] > > > > > > > "P1918.1.1 - Haptic Codecs for the Tactile > Internet", > > > > > > > <https://standards.ieee.org/project/1918_1_1.html > >. > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" > portion of the > > > > > > > online Style Guide < > https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> > > > > > > > and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this > nature > > > > > > > typically result in more precise language, which is helpful > for readers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, please consider whether the following should be > updated: > > > > > > > native > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note that native can be ambiguous because it is subjective. > Perhaps "built-in" would work? > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RFC Editor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 23, 2024, at 11:03 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Updated 2024/12/23 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RFC Author(s): > > > > > > > -------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Instructions for Completing AUTH48 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been > reviewed and > > > > > > > approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an > RFC. > > > > > > > If an author is no longer available, there are several > remedies > > > > > > > available as listed in the FAQ ( > https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other > parties > > > > > > > (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before > providing > > > > > > > your approval. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Planning your review > > > > > > > --------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review the following aspects of your document: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * RFC Editor questions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC > Editor > > > > > > > that have been included in the XML file as comments marked > as > > > > > > > follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <!-- [rfced] ... --> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Changes submitted by coauthors > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your > > > > > > > coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you > > > > > > > agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Content > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review the full content of the document, as this > cannot > > > > > > > change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular > attention to: > > > > > > > - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) > > > > > > > - contact information > > > > > > > - references > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Copyright notices and legends > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in > > > > > > > RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions > > > > > > > (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Semantic markup > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that > elements of > > > > > > > content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that > <sourcecode> > > > > > > > and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at > > > > > > > <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Formatted output > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that > the > > > > > > > formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML > file, is > > > > > > > reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting > > > > > > > limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Submitting changes > > > > > > > ------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY > ALL’ as all > > > > > > > the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The > parties > > > > > > > include: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * your coauthors > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * other document participants, depending on the stream > (e.g., > > > > > > > IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, > the > > > > > > > responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival > mailing list > > > > > > > to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active > discussion > > > > > > > list: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * More info: > > > > > > > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * The archive itself: > > > > > > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily > opt out > > > > > > > of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a > sensitive matter). > > > > > > > If needed, please add a note at the top of the message > that you > > > > > > > have dropped the address. When the discussion is > concluded, > > > > > > > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the > CC list and > > > > > > > its addition will be noted at the top of the message. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You may submit your changes in one of two ways: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > An update to the provided XML file > > > > > > > — OR — > > > > > > > An explicit list of changes in this format > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Section # (or indicate Global) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OLD: > > > > > > > old text > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NEW: > > > > > > > new text > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an > explicit > > > > > > > list of changes, as either form is sufficient. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes > that seem > > > > > > > beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, > deletion of text, > > > > > > > and technical changes. Information about stream managers can > be found in > > > > > > > the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a > stream manager. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Approving for publication > > > > > > > -------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this > email stating > > > > > > > that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY > ALL’, > > > > > > > as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your > approval. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Files > > > > > > > ----- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The files are available here: > > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695.xml > > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695.html > > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695.pdf > > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695.txt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Diff file of the text: > > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695-diff.html > > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695-rfcdiff.html > (side by side) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Diff of the XML: > > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9695-xmldiff1.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tracking progress > > > > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > > > > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9695 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > RFC Editor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > > > > > RFC9695 (draft-ietf-mediaman-haptics-05) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Title : The 'haptics' Top-level Media Type > > > > > > > Author(s) : Y. Muthusamy, C. Ullrich > > > > > > > WG Chair(s) : Harald T. Alvestrand > > > > > > > Area Director(s) : Murray Kucherawy, Orie Steele > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
