Jeff, Thank you for your reply. The revised files are here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9764.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9764.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9764.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9764.xml
This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9764-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9764-rfcdiff.html (side by side) This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9764-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9764-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) This diff file shows only the changes since the last posted version: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9764-lastrfcdiff.html We will wait to hear from you again and from your coauthors before continuing the publication process. This page shows the AUTH48 status of your document: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9764 Thank you. RFC Editor/ar > On Apr 3, 2025, at 6:25 AM, Jeff Haas <jh...@juniper.net> wrote: > > Alice, > >> This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far: >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9764-auth48diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DulRqW5N_GWlzu33Fmtfm45VVwyWnf--B3I530cGoqDy5GC_m8mpNAUqw53KwGOTWAkA2hX2Fe29g63r7I_AK7Y$ >> >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9764-auth48diff.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DulRqW5N_GWlzu33Fmtfm45VVwyWnf--B3I530cGoqDy5GC_m8mpNAUqw53KwGOTWAkA2hX2Fe29g63r7I_AK7Y$> > > The interdiff here looks fine, thanks. > >> Re: 4) Section 4.5, where "The above text" refers to the entire section, per >> your reply. This sentence has not been been updated. Please consider whether >> it would be more precise as follows. >> >> Orig: The above text also applies to most, if not all, BFD techniques. >> Perhaps: This section applies to most, if not all, BFD techniques. > > The perhaps text is fine. > >> Re: 7) Security Considerations, you replied: >>> The deviation was intentional, but perhaps may be better served by >>> preserving >>> the original boilerplate while adding on the additional clarification >>> sentence. >> >> >> We have not updated the document; please provide the new text. > > Proposed text: > > : Modules that use the groupings that are defined in this document > : should identify the corresponding security considerations. For > : example, reusing some of these groupings will expose privacy-related > : information (e.g., 'node-example'). This module defines one such grouping, > : "bfd-large-common", which contains the "pdu-size" data node whose security > : considerations are documented above. > > The takes the boilerplate section you noted and appends the sentence that > explains what, in this module, is applicable. > > ------ > > One further comment, Albert points out that the two instances of "1500" > In the text should be "1512" for consistency with the example earlier > In the document. > > -- Jeff > > > Juniper Business Use Only -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
