Hi Brian, Thank you for your reply. We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page (https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9778).
This concludes the AUTH48 process for this document. We will move this document forward in the publication process along with RFCs-to-be 9776 and 9777 when approved/complete. Best regards, RFC Editor/kc > On Mar 17, 2025, at 7:26 AM, Brian Haberman <br...@innovationslab.net> wrote: > > Hi Karen, > All looks good! No additional keywords to add. > > Regards, > Brian > >> 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 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
