Hi Michael, Thank you for your reply. We have updated the document accordingly and have no further questions.
Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form. We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the publication process. The updated files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9726.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9726.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9726.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9726.xml The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9726-diff.html (comprehensive diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9726-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes only) Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the most recent version. For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9726 Thank you, RFC Editor/st > On Mar 23, 2025, at 8:07 AM, Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> wrote: > > > Sarah Tarrant <starr...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: >> Thank you for your reply. We have updated the document accordingly. > >> We have a few followup questions/comments: > >> A) Regarding: >>>> 4) <!--[rfced] Please clarify "a specific purpose device". >>>> This term has not been used in past documents; >>>> perhaps it is in contrast to "a general-purpose device", a term >>>> used in RFC 8520. May it be rephrased as below, or >>>> does it mean the same as "a single-purpose device"? >>>> >>>> Original: >>>> [RFC8520] provides a standardized way to describe how a specific >>>> purpose device makes use of Internet resources. >>>> >>>> Perhaps: >>>> [RFC8520] provides a standardized way to describe how a device >>>> for a specific purpose makes use of Internet resources. > --> >>> >>> RFC8520 says "These devices, which this memo refers to as Things, have a >>> specific purpose." >>> >>> So while we haven't given an actual definition in RFC8520 like "specific >>> purpose device" before, I feel like it's a thing. >>> I don't mind the rewording above, but I don't love it. > >> Thank you for the explanation. Would the following "a device with a >> specific purpose" be more agreeable? > >> Perhaps: >> [RFC8520] provides a standardized way to describe how a device >> with a specific purpose makes use of Internet resources. > > Yes, I can live with this. > >> B) Regarding: >>>> 14) <!-- [rfced] We see some inconsistencies with the following terms. >>>> Please >>>> review and let us know if any updates are needed. >>>> >>>> edns-client-subnet (ECS) EDNS0 option >>>> edns-client-subnet option >>>> edns-client-server >>>> EDNS0 > --> >>> >>> Yes, that's great, thank you. > >> Please let us know how we can update. > > Okay, I misunderstood. > I think that "edns-client-subnet option" is a reasonable contraction of the > IANA registered name "edns-client-subnet (ECS) EDNS0 option" > > Yes. > edns-client-server should be "edns-client-subnet option" > > The other use of EDNS0 refers to the fact that a client can use the first > (and most famous?) EDNS0's OPT pseudo code that allows for much larger DNS > replies. But, DNS people seemed happy when they reviewed, so let's leave > that part. > > But, I see that EDNS0 -> EDNS(0) by RFC6891. > > -- > Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS* > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
