LGTM; thank you! On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 8:25 AM Alanna Paloma <apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> Hi Authors and Erik (AD)*, > > *Erik (AD) - This is another friendly reminder that we are awaiting your > review and approval regarding the BCP 14 key word update from “MUST not” to > “MUST NOT” in the sentence below: > > Original: > In particular, enabling or disabling the P flag MUST not trigger > automatic changes in the A flag value set by the router. > > Current: > In particular, enabling or disabling the P flag MUST NOT trigger > automatic changes in the A flag value set by the router. > > See this diff file: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762-auth48diff.html > > Additionally, we are still awaiting word regarding this query: > >> 6) <!-- [rfced] *AD and authors - There is an open erratum report > against RFC > >> 4861 regarding the text that is being updated in Section 9.1 of this > >> document. Are any updates needed? > >> > >> See https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8055. > >> --> > > > > There is no conflict in spirit between the filed erratum and this > > document. But if the erratum is approved then the text of this > > document should be updated to reflect the erratum, and say: > > “Note: If none of the M, O, or P (draft-ietf-6man-pio-pflag) flags are > > set, this indicates that no information is available via DHCPv6 from > > the router, or from other nodes that the router has been made aware > > of". > > > > With my 6MAN chair hat on: let the chairs discuss it with the AD. I > > think it would be better if the decision for the erratum is made > > before this draft is published. > > > Authors - We will await any further updates you may have as well as > approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status page below prior to > moving this document forward in the publication process. > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762.xml > > The relevant diff files are posted here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762-diff.html (comprehensive diff) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762-auth48diff.html (all AUTH48 > changes) > > Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9762 > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/ap > > > On Apr 25, 2025, at 9:54 AM, Alanna Paloma <apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > > > > Hi Authors and Erik (AD)*, > > > > *Erik (AD) - This is a friendly reminder that we are awaiting your > review and approval regarding the BCP 14 key word update from “MUST not” to > “MUST NOT” in the sentence below: > > > > Original: > > In particular, enabling or disabling the P flag MUST not trigger > > automatic changes in the A flag value set by the router. > > > > Current: > > In particular, enabling or disabling the P flag MUST NOT trigger > > automatic changes in the A flag value set by the router. > > > > See this diff file: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762-auth48diff.html > > > > Additionally, we are still awaiting word regarding this query: > >>> 6) <!-- [rfced] *AD and authors - There is an open erratum report > against RFC > >>> 4861 regarding the text that is being updated in Section 9.1 of this > >>> document. Are any updates needed? > >>> > >>> See https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8055. > >>> --> > >> > >> There is no conflict in spirit between the filed erratum and this > >> document. But if the erratum is approved then the text of this > >> document should be updated to reflect the erratum, and say: > >> “Note: If none of the M, O, or P (draft-ietf-6man-pio-pflag) flags are > >> set, this indicates that no information is available via DHCPv6 from > >> the router, or from other nodes that the router has been made aware > >> of". > >> > >> With my 6MAN chair hat on: let the chairs discuss it with the AD. I > >> think it would be better if the decision for the erratum is made > >> before this draft is published. > > > > > > Authors - We will await any further changes you may have and approvals > from each author and the *AD prior to moving forward in the publication > process. > > > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762.txt > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762.pdf > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762.xml > > > > The relevant diff files are posted here: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762-diff.html (comprehensive > diff) > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762-auth48diff.html (all AUTH48 > changes) > > > > Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9762 > > > > Thank you, > > RFC Editor/ap > > >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
