Hi Brian, Thank you for your review and reply. We have made the following changes:
- updated 2 instances of “1 query retransmissions” to “1 query retransmission(s)” - updated the text to reflect “Query Message(s)” - updated the title of 4.1.1 from “Max Resp Code” to “Max Response Code”. Per your explanation, we felt that this would suffice; however, if you would like to add text to indicate that Max Resp Code is short for Max Response Code in that section, please provide the text and let us know where you would like to add it. - updated “filter mode” to “filter-mode” (only lowercase instances) throughout the text per your explanation. Please review to make sure the changes are correct and to check if any further updates are needed. Questions: 1) Please confirm if all lowercase instances of “filter mode” should be “filter-mode” in RFC-to-be 9777 for consistency. 2) Should all instances of “source list” be “source-list” (the parameter) in this document and RFC-to-be 9777? Please review. We are almost there in terms of sorting out this terminology! Thanks for your guidance :-). —FILES (please refresh)— The updated XML file is here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9776.xml The updated output files are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9776.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9776.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9776.html These diff files show all changes made during AUTH48: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9776-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9776-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) These diff files show only the changes made during the last edit round: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9776-lastdiff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9776-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) These diff files show all changes made to date: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9776-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9776-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Best regards, RFC Editor/kc > On Mar 17, 2025, at 7:26 AM, Brian Haberman <br...@innovationslab.net> wrote: > > Hi Karen, > Responses in-line... > >> On Mar 14, 2025, at 6:34 PM, Karen Moore <kmo...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: >> >> Hi Brian, >> >> Thank you for your reply. We have updated our files based on your >> responses, and we have included the terminology updates you made per the >> cluster-wide questions. We have some additional questions/clarifications. >> >> 1) Please let us know if you would like to add any keywords (beyond those in >> the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. >> > > No other keywords to add. > >> 2) FYI: In Section 6.2, we moved the artwork (both lines) over a few spaces >> to the left as the first line was over the 72-character limit. If any >> further adjustments are needed, please let us know. >> > > Ok. > >> 3) Sections 6.6.3.1 and 6.6.3.2. Should “1 query retransmissions” be “1 >> query retransmission”, or is the current text correct? >> >> Current: >> The router must then immediately send a Group >> Specific Query as well as schedule [Last Member Query Count] - 1 >> query retransmissions to be sent every [Last Member Query Interval] >> over [Last Member Query Time]. >> > > The text is worded as it is since [Last Member Query Interval] could be > greater than two, resulting in multiple retransmissions. One option could be > to change “retransmissions” to “retransmission(s)” if that is clearer from an > editorial perspective. I am fine either way. > >> 4) In Section 9.2, we updated “Version 1 Report Message” to “v1 Report >> message” (same for "Version 2 Report Message” in the paragraph that follows) >> to match Table 14. If that is not correct, please let us know. >> >> Original: >> A forged Version 1 Report Message may put a router into "version 1 >> members present" state for a particular group, meaning that the >> router will ignore Leave messages. >> >> Current: >> A forged v1 Report message may put a router into “v1 members >> present" state for a particular group, meaning that the router will >> ignore Leave messages. >> > > That change is fine. > >> 5) FYI: We updated a few instances of “State-Change reports” to >> “State-Change Reports” for consistency within this doc and with RFC-to-be >> 9777. >> > > Good. > >> 6) We updated “Max Resp Time” to “Max Response Time”. May we also update >> “Max Resp Code” to “Max Response Code” for consistency? >> > > We used “Max Resp Code” since that is the field name in Figure 1. One option > would be to leave the field name in Figure 1 and re-word the text in 4.1.1 to > indicate that Max Resp Code is short for Max Response Code. > >> 7) We note that only three instances of “filter-mode” were updated to >> “filter mode” (Section 6.2.1). Should the hyphen be removed from any other >> instances of “filter-mode” in the text for consistency, or is everything as >> intended? >> >> Current (Section 6.2.1): >> To reduce internal state, IGMPv3 routers keep a filter mode per group >> per attached network. This filter mode is used to condense the total >> desired reception state of a group to a minimum set such that all >> systems' memberships are satisfied. This filter mode may change in >> response to the reception of particular types of Group Records or >> when certain timer conditions occur. In the following sections, we >> use the term Router Filter Mode to refer to the filter-mode of a >> particular group within a router. > > I think I am going to reverse my edits on “filter mode” and “filter-mode”. > The pseudocode in section 2 specifically names one of the parameters > “filter-mode” and that is what is being referenced throughout the text. The > same can be said for another parameter in that pseudocode (source-list). The > prose should use “filter-mode” to be consistent with the pseudocode. > >> >> 8) We still note the following inconsistencies. Please let us know if/how we >> can make these consistent. >> >> a) >> RFC-to-be 9776: >> Query message >> the query message >> received Query Message >> received query message >> >> Query messages >> separate query messages >> >> RFC-to-be 9777: >> Query message(s) >> query message(s) > > For naming consistency, these can all be “Query Message(s)” > >> >> b) Source-List-Change Record (9776) vs. Source List Change Record (9777) >> > > Please use the hyphenated convention across the board. > > Regards, > Brian > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
