Santosh, We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 page for this document (https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9772). Approvals are complete; we will move this document forward in the publication process.
Thank you for your time. RFC Editor/ar > On May 20, 2025, at 5:06 AM, Santosh P K <santosh.pallaga...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I read through the latest document and I am good with the updated document. > > Thanks > Santosh P K > > On Thu, May 8, 2025 at 2:32 AM Alice Russo <aru...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > Greg, > > Thank you for your reply. This document has been updated accordingly and will > be published with RFC-to-be 9780 (when approvals of both documents are > complete). > > This diff file shows only the changes since the last posted version (please > refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772-lastrfcdiff.html > > The URLs are the same as below. > > RFC Editor/ar > > > On May 6, 2025, at 1:29 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Alice, > > thank you for your question. I think that the appropriate level of > > reference to draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd is normative. > > > > Regards, > > Greg > > > > On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 1:23 PM Alice Russo <aru...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > > wrote: > > David and coauthors, > > > > Thank you for your reply, David; your information has been updated as > > requested. A reference question: > > > > Should draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd be a normative reference because of the > > "MUST" in the "For IPv6" sentence in Section 2.3 (pasted below)? We note > > that draft is currently in AUTH48 state as RFC-to-be 9870. If you make the > > reference normative, then this document will refer to it by RFC number, and > > they will be published at the same time. > > > > Inner IP header: > > Destination IP: The IP address MUST be set to the loopback > > address 127.0.0.1/32 for IPv4 version. For IPv6, the address > > MUST be selected from the Dummy IPv6 Prefix 100:0:0:1::/64 > > [P2MP-BFD]. > > > > For background, "Normative references specify documents that must be read > > to understand or implement the technology in the new RFC, or whose > > technology must be present for the technology in the new RFC to work." -- > > quoting the IESG statement > > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-iesg-statement-normative-and-informative-references-20060419/). > > > > > > Re: David's updates > > > > The revised files are here (please refresh): > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772.txt > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772.pdf > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772.xml > > > > This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772-diff.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > > > This diff file shows only the changes since the last posted version: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9772-lastrfcdiff.html > > > > Re: > > > With those changes, I approve the resulting document. > > > > We have recorded your approval. This page shows the AUTH48 status > > of your document: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9772 > > > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor/ar -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
