Hi Gorry, Tom, and Trond, Thank you for the quick replies! We have marked your approvals on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9754).
Note that we updated the list in the Definitions section to use <ul>, and we also moved one list item (stated) so that all items are in alphabetical order. All of our questions have been addressed, and all approvals have been received. We will begin to prepare this document for publication at this time. — FILES (please refresh) — Updated XML file: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9754.xml Updated output files: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9754.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9754.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9754.html Diff files showing all changes made during AUTH48: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9754-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9754-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff files showing all changes: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9754-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9754-rfcdiff.html (side by side) For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9754 Thank you, RFC Editor/rv > On Mar 20, 2025, at 7:35 PM, Gorry Fairhurst <go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk> wrote: > > On 21/03/2025 02:02, Rebecca VanRheenen wrote: >> Hi Tom and Gorry*, >> >> *Gorry - As AD, please review and approve the following changes. These are >> best viewed in this diff file: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9754-auth48diff.html. >> >> 1) Added paragraph in Section 5; it’s the fourth paragraph (author comment: >> "We missed the following paragraph in what we submitted. It has undergone >> review within the WG.”) >> 2) Added text in Section 5.2 (author comment: "And likewise we missed >> including the flags above. Two implementations had them, but a third one >> (which arrived after we sent the document out to the RFC Editors did not.) >> This has undergone the WG vetting process.”) >> 3) Added “MUST” in third paragraph of Section 5 (to correspond with “MUST” >> earlier in sentence) >> >> Tom - Thank you for responding to our questions and for updating the xml >> file with the list in the Definitions section. We created a test file that >> uses <ul> rather than <dl> for this list; see below. Do you have a >> preference for one of these formats (i.e., <dl> or <ul>)? We’re happy to >> make the change if you prefer <ul>. >> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9754-TEST.html#name-definitions >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9754-TEST.txt >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9754-TEST.pdf >> >> >> — FILES (please refresh) — >> >> Updated XML file: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9754.xml >> >> Updated output files: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9754.txt >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9754.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9754.html >> >> Diff files showing all changes made during AUTH48: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9754-auth48diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9754-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> >> Diff files showing all changes: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9754-diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9754-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> >> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9754 >> >> Thank you, >> >> RFC Editor/rv >> >> > I understand that the major changes were reviewed within the WG. > I approve this version. > Gorry > (WIT AD) >> >> >>> On Mar 17, 2025, at 8:39 PM, Thomas Haynes <log...@hammerspace.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Please find attached my responses to the questions asked in the draft and >>> some changes that came in after we sent the document to the RFC Editors. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Tom >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Mar 18, 2025, at 4:26 AM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: >>>> >>>> *****IMPORTANT***** >>>> >>>> Updated 2025/03/17 >>>> >>>> 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/rfc9754.xml >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9754.html >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9754.pdf >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9754.txt >>>> >>>> Diff file of the text: >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9754-diff.html >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9754-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >>>> >>>> Diff of the XML: >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9754-xmldiff1.html >>>> >>>> >>>> Tracking progress >>>> ----------------- >>>> >>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9754 >>>> >>>> Please let us know if you have any questions. >>>> >>>> Thank you for your cooperation, >>>> >>>> RFC Editor >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------- >>>> RFC9754 (draft-ietf-nfsv4-delstid-08) >>>> >>>> Title : Extending the Opening of Files in NFSv4.2 >>>> Author(s) : T. Haynes, T. Myklebust >>>> WG Chair(s) : Brian Pawlowski, Christopher Inacio >>>> >>>> Area Director(s) : Zaheduzzaman Sarker, Francesca Palombini >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> <rfc9754.xml> >>> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
