Hi Brian, Thank you for your reply. We have updated our files accordingly. Please review and let us know if any further updates are needed or if you approve the document in its current form.
Additionally, if you would like to add any keywords (beyond those in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search, please let us know. Note that we will update the references to RFCs-to-be 9776 and 9777 to be STDs prior to publication. --FILES-- The updated XML file is here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9778.xml The updated output files are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9778.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9778.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9778.html These diff files show all changes made during AUTH48: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9778-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9778-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) These diff files show all changes made to date: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9778-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9778-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the most recent version. Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Please contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form. We will await approval from the author prior to moving forward in the publication process. For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9778 Thank you, RFC Editor/kc > On Mar 11, 2025, at 1:04 PM, Brian Haberman via auth48archive > <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > Responses to the RFC Editor questions are inline... > >> On Mar 11, 2025, at 2:24 AM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: >> >> Brian, >> >> Authors, >> >> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) >> the following questions, which are also in the XML file. >> >> 1) <!--[rfced] The short title that spans the header of the PDF file has >> been updated as follows to more closely align with the document >> title. Please let us know of any objections. >> >> Original: >> IGMP IANA >> >> Current: >> IANA Considerations for IGMP >> --> > > No objections. > >> >> >> 2) <!--[rfced] This document obsoletes RFC 3228, which was BCP 57. As >> such, we have assigned BCP 57 to this document. Please let us know any >> changes are needed. >> >> See the complete list of BCPs here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcps >> --> > > Looks good. > >> >> >> 3) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in >> the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> >> >> >> 4) <!-- [rfced] For ease of the reader, we suggest including the IANA >> registry name. Do the types and codes get registered in the Internet >> Control Message Protocol (ICMP) Parameters registry >> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmp-parameters>? However, we don't see >> "IETF Review" listed >> as the registration procedure for any of the registries on that page. >> >> Perhaps this refers to the "IGMP/MLD Extension Types" registry, which lists >> IETF Review and includes a range for Experimental Use? >> >> Original: >> 2.1.2. Multicast Listener Discovery >> >> As with IGMP, the MLD header also contains Type and Code fields. >> Assignment of those fields within the MLD header is defined in >> [RFC4443] with a registration policy of IETF Review. >> --> > > The MLD-related tables are in the ICMPv6 Type registry > https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/icmpv6-parameters.xhtml#icmpv6-parameters-2 > >> >> >> 5) <!--[rfced] For easy reference, would you like to add section numbers >> to the following text? If so, please confirm that Sections 5.1 >> and 5.2 of [RFC9777] and Sections 4.1 and 4.2 of [RFC9776] are >> correct. Note that there are two instances in the text. >> >> Original: >> The Flags Bit value in the registry above corresponds to the column header >> in the packet format diagrams in [I-D.ietf-pim-3810bis] and >> [I-D.ietf-pim-3376bis]. >> >> Perhaps: >> The Flags Bit value in the registry above corresponds to the column header >> in the packet format diagrams in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of [RFC9777] and >> Sections 4.1 and 4.2 of [RFC9776]. >> --> > > Yes, please add the section numbers (and those are the correct section > numbers). >> >> >> 6) <!-- [rfced] Because the E-bit appears in both tables with a reference, >> the text that follows seems redundant. Perhaps "The initial contents..." >> text can be removed? >> >> | 0 | E | Extension | RFC 9279 | >> >> ... >> The initial contents of this requested registry should contain the >> E-bit defined in [RFC9279]. >> >> >> | 0 | E | Extension | RFC 9279 | >> >> ... >> The initial contents of this requested registry should contain the >> E-bit defined in [RFC9279]. >> --> > > Yes, that clause can be dropped. > >> >> >> 7) <!-- [rfced] As RFCs 9776 and 9777 are being with this document, please >> consider whether the references should be to the individual RFCs or the >> STDs instead. >> —> > > I think the references should be to the STDs. > >> >> >> 8) <!-- [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. >> >> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should >> still be reviewed as a best practice. >> --> > > This all seems good. > > Regards, > Brian > >> >> >> Thank you. >> >> RFC Editor >> >> >> >> >> On Mar 10, 2025, at 11:07 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: >> >> *****IMPORTANT***** >> >> Updated 2025/03/10 >> >> 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/rfc9778.xml >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9778.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9778.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9778.txt >> >> Diff file of the text: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9778-diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9778-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> >> Diff of the XML: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9778-xmldiff1.html >> >> >> Tracking progress >> ----------------- >> >> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9778 >> >> Please let us know if you have any questions. >> >> Thank you for your cooperation, >> >> RFC Editor >> >> -------------------------------------- >> RFC 9778 (draft-ietf-pim-3228bis-07) >> >> Title : IANA Considerations for Internet Group Management >> Protocols >> Author(s) : B. Haberman >> WG Chair(s) : Stig Venaas, Mike McBride >> >> Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, John Scudder, Gunter Van de Velde >> >> > > -- > auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
