I approve too Thanks!
On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 12:29 PM Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Madison, > > Hmm! I thought I had given my approval. Anyway, here it is. And thanks. > > On Apr 8, 2025, at 10:11 AM, Madison Church <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > > Hi Joe, > > Thank you for your reply! As of right now, we are still awaiting approvals > from Mahesh, Clyde, and Kiran (see > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9742 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_auth48_rfc9742&d=DwQFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=a4LX8e9OtBd5VkTZlqJmqdfPFnuSpeLLDx12MCLKNuE8bp2W2kmPGuoIZGQ5XCmP8e0ZUWHvW_kbHKc5ekVI0A&m=RWMKTTUtFYEyk8WDcOJssVYwUI9JwchFprB1mDivUw74hRa4VNfcxhGIm0zHf6tq&s=enA8LleVQAZcLwxszx0y9jGnltz3tSMD-hxzwNpTw4c&e=> > ). > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/mc > > On Apr 8, 2025, at 9:56 AM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com> > wrote: > > Madison, who haven’t you heard from? I think you have my approval as well > as Mahesh. > > Joe > — > PGP Key : https://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.marcuscom.com_pgp.asc&d=DwQFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=a4LX8e9OtBd5VkTZlqJmqdfPFnuSpeLLDx12MCLKNuE8bp2W2kmPGuoIZGQ5XCmP8e0ZUWHvW_kbHKc5ekVI0A&m=RWMKTTUtFYEyk8WDcOJssVYwUI9JwchFprB1mDivUw74hRa4VNfcxhGIm0zHf6tq&s=Am82GxWBQBRI0-qSM3_LxC7UnVxXhf284DMXZdWqPNo&e=> > > On Apr 8, 2025, at 12:55, Madison Church <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > > Hi Authors, > > This is a friendly reminder that we have yet to hear back from some of you > regarding this document’s readiness for publication. > > Please review the AUTH48 status page ( > http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9742 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_auth48_rfc9742&d=DwQFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=a4LX8e9OtBd5VkTZlqJmqdfPFnuSpeLLDx12MCLKNuE8bp2W2kmPGuoIZGQ5XCmP8e0ZUWHvW_kbHKc5ekVI0A&m=RWMKTTUtFYEyk8WDcOJssVYwUI9JwchFprB1mDivUw74hRa4VNfcxhGIm0zHf6tq&s=ySMyZMtRaLLE9fiaAqbvJzNprMfcsuOO_QjVensjuHo&e=>) > for further information and the previous messages in this thread for > pertinent communication. > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/mc > > On Apr 1, 2025, at 1:26 PM, Madison Church <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > > Hi Authors, > > Thank you all for your replies! We have left the YANG module as is (Option > A). All of our questions have now been addressed. > > 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. > > Updated files (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742.txt > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9742.txt&d=DwQFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=a4LX8e9OtBd5VkTZlqJmqdfPFnuSpeLLDx12MCLKNuE8bp2W2kmPGuoIZGQ5XCmP8e0ZUWHvW_kbHKc5ekVI0A&m=RWMKTTUtFYEyk8WDcOJssVYwUI9JwchFprB1mDivUw74hRa4VNfcxhGIm0zHf6tq&s=4_JFlLrj3cbgb7YqX9bLYTdLhie1FRrMnGFr1V68bgo&e=> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742.pdf > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9742.pdf&d=DwQFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=a4LX8e9OtBd5VkTZlqJmqdfPFnuSpeLLDx12MCLKNuE8bp2W2kmPGuoIZGQ5XCmP8e0ZUWHvW_kbHKc5ekVI0A&m=RWMKTTUtFYEyk8WDcOJssVYwUI9JwchFprB1mDivUw74hRa4VNfcxhGIm0zHf6tq&s=qTYClY3pFO4PFbUK_Bzao7mnSalFjIakxiRlVIRM_oE&e=> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742.html > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9742.html&d=DwQFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=a4LX8e9OtBd5VkTZlqJmqdfPFnuSpeLLDx12MCLKNuE8bp2W2kmPGuoIZGQ5XCmP8e0ZUWHvW_kbHKc5ekVI0A&m=RWMKTTUtFYEyk8WDcOJssVYwUI9JwchFprB1mDivUw74hRa4VNfcxhGIm0zHf6tq&s=76HEmp094DxfDGMfoI9jtsK1qeeO5OEKO3LQZzq_r-Y&e=> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742.xml > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9742.xml&d=DwQFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=a4LX8e9OtBd5VkTZlqJmqdfPFnuSpeLLDx12MCLKNuE8bp2W2kmPGuoIZGQ5XCmP8e0ZUWHvW_kbHKc5ekVI0A&m=RWMKTTUtFYEyk8WDcOJssVYwUI9JwchFprB1mDivUw74hRa4VNfcxhGIm0zHf6tq&s=TM2R3SNKNZxXeioqrEFuIyAftRY8X4FG4kWSN4XyB_8&e=> > > Diff files: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742-diff.html > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9742-2Ddiff.html&d=DwQFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=a4LX8e9OtBd5VkTZlqJmqdfPFnuSpeLLDx12MCLKNuE8bp2W2kmPGuoIZGQ5XCmP8e0ZUWHvW_kbHKc5ekVI0A&m=RWMKTTUtFYEyk8WDcOJssVYwUI9JwchFprB1mDivUw74hRa4VNfcxhGIm0zHf6tq&s=V-iv6pwBpGYEJRw4mACUWk7A-3sw1Y4Cj2TAPtf3IYo&e=> > (comprehensive diff) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742-rfcdiff.html > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9742-2Drfcdiff.html&d=DwQFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=a4LX8e9OtBd5VkTZlqJmqdfPFnuSpeLLDx12MCLKNuE8bp2W2kmPGuoIZGQ5XCmP8e0ZUWHvW_kbHKc5ekVI0A&m=RWMKTTUtFYEyk8WDcOJssVYwUI9JwchFprB1mDivUw74hRa4VNfcxhGIm0zHf6tq&s=wlKSy33f8ihLv7D1sHQmxjGgT7N4LzERUZMyxiYIqjU&e=> > (side by side) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742-auth48diff.html > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9742-2Dauth48diff.html&d=DwQFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=a4LX8e9OtBd5VkTZlqJmqdfPFnuSpeLLDx12MCLKNuE8bp2W2kmPGuoIZGQ5XCmP8e0ZUWHvW_kbHKc5ekVI0A&m=RWMKTTUtFYEyk8WDcOJssVYwUI9JwchFprB1mDivUw74hRa4VNfcxhGIm0zHf6tq&s=2b-DMqluzcHwX3e6qwn218E7PdFOBikox0Jvq4-DPwg&e=> > (AUTH48 changes only) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9742-auth48rfcdiff.html > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_authors_rfc9742-2Dauth48rfcdiff.html&d=DwQFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=a4LX8e9OtBd5VkTZlqJmqdfPFnuSpeLLDx12MCLKNuE8bp2W2kmPGuoIZGQ5XCmP8e0ZUWHvW_kbHKc5ekVI0A&m=RWMKTTUtFYEyk8WDcOJssVYwUI9JwchFprB1mDivUw74hRa4VNfcxhGIm0zHf6tq&s=o7Cxefm2fag-mo4PspTE8bUdTmnDCUPwQwt5QJJYqdw&e=> > (side by side) > > For the AUTH48 status page, see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9742 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_auth48_rfc9742&d=DwQFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=a4LX8e9OtBd5VkTZlqJmqdfPFnuSpeLLDx12MCLKNuE8bp2W2kmPGuoIZGQ5XCmP8e0ZUWHvW_kbHKc5ekVI0A&m=RWMKTTUtFYEyk8WDcOJssVYwUI9JwchFprB1mDivUw74hRa4VNfcxhGIm0zHf6tq&s=enA8LleVQAZcLwxszx0y9jGnltz3tSMD-hxzwNpTw4c&e=> > > > > Thank you! > RFC Editor/mc > > On Apr 1, 2025, at 10:57 AM, Agrahara Sreenivasa, Kiran Koushik < > kirankoushik.agraharasreeniv...@verizonwireless.com> wrote: > > > I second Mahesh below > > Thanks > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 10:42 AM Mahesh Jethanandani < > mjethanand...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Madison, > > On Apr 1, 2025, at 8:21 AM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com> > wrote: > > > > 1) Thank you for pointing this out. With the initial AUTH48 email, we sent > out the following query: > > 6) <!-- [rfced] FYI, in the YANG tree, this line was followed by a > floating question mark, which we moved up to the preceding line. > This line exceeds the character limit (69 chars for <sourcecode>) > by 3 characters. For updating it, which option do you prefer? > > Original: > | | | {certificate-expiration-notification} > ? > > Current: > | | | {certificate-expiration-notification}? > > > Option A (using the "\" line wrapping notation as used in Appendix A.1 > and adding the note about line wrapping for formatting only): > > | | | {certificate-expiration-notificati\ > on}? > > > Option B (moving it 3 spaces to the left): > | | | {certificate-expiration-notification}? > --> > > This was due to the "{certificate-expiration-notification}?" line > exceeding the character limit. With this in mind, should this change remain > as is? > [JMC] I suggested option A since that is established with what other > modules do (and there is tooling to unwrap). If Mahesh strongly prefers B, > I’m okay with that. > > > Agree. Let us go with option A. > > Thanks. > > > > > > The third comment has to do with the description of the example in Section > 6.1. It currently reads as: > > This example shows enabling console logging of syslogs of severity > critical. > > The statement structure seems awkward. How about “This example shows how > the console logging of syslog of severity critical can be enabled.”? > > Finally, a similar sentence restructuring for the description in Section > 6.2 also. > > > 2) We have updated the sentence in Section 6.2 as follows. Please let us > know if any updates are needed. Additionally, should "severity error" be > plural in this sentence? > > Current: > This example shows how the remote logging of syslogs to UDP destination > > foo.example.com for facility auth and severity error can be enabled. > > Perhaps: > This example shows how the remote logging of syslogs to UDP destination > > foo.example.com for facility auth and severity errors can be enabled. > [JMC] I think the current text is more accurate. The severity name (from > the enumeration) is “error”. > Joe > > > Mahesh Jethanandani > mjethanand...@gmail.com > > > > > > Mahesh Jethanandani > mjethanand...@gmail.com > > > > > > >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
