Hi Alanna, Sorry for the late reply, read the documentation/diff again, looks good to me! Approve the updated text for publication.
Thanks, Xiao On Fri, Jun 6, 2025 at 12:51 AM Alanna Paloma <apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > Hi Lorenzo, > > Thank you for your reply. We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status > page and updated the files accordingly. > > 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) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762-lastdiff.html (htmlwdiff diff > between last version and this) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff > between last version and this) > > Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9762 > > Once Xiao and David approve, we will move forward with the publication > process. > > Best regards, > RFC Editor/ap > > > > On Jun 4, 2025, at 6:08 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lore...@google.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Sorry for the delay. I approve the document. If possible the following > minor changes, but very much optional - LGTM either way. > > > > Section 10: "disrupt hosts connectivity anyway" -> "disrupt hosts' > connectivity anyway" OR "disrupt hosts's connectivity anyway" > > Section 11: "DHCPv6 for assigning individual addresses" -> "DHCPv6 to > assign individual addresses" > > > > Thanks, > > Lorenzo > > > > On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 5:33 AM Alanna Paloma < > apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > Hi Lorenzo, Xiao, and David, > > > > This is a friendly reminder that that we await your approvals 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) > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762-lastdiff.html (htmlwdiff > diff between last version and this) > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff > between last version and this) > > > > Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9762 > > > > Thank you, > > RFC Editor/ap > > > > > On May 28, 2025, at 8:41 AM, Bob Hinden <bob.hin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Lorenzo, Xiao, David, > > > > > > I see it now waiting for your approval to be published. Please > respond. > > > > > > Bob > > > > > > > > >> On May 28, 2025, at 8:34 AM, Alanna Paloma < > apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi Erik, > > >> > > >> Thank you for your approval. We’ve noted it on the AUTH48 status page: > > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9762 > > >> > > >> Best regards, > > >> RFC Editor/ap > > >> > > >>> On May 27, 2025, at 8:54 PM, Erik Kline <ek.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> LGTM! > > >>> > > >>> On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 2:53 PM Alanna Paloma < > apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > >>> Hi Authors and Erik (AD)*, > > >>> > > >>> *Erik (AD) - This is a friendly reminder that we await your review > and approval of the reorder list items under “NEW TEXT” in Section 9.2. > > >>> > > >>> See this diff file: > > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762-ad-diff.html > > >>> > > >>> For context, here is Lorenzo’s rationale for this update: > > >>>> The issue is: according to this text, in step a), if the prefix is > the link-local prefix, then the host should use PD. But elsewhere in this > document (which will become RFC 9762) we say that the P flag is meaningless > for link-local prefixes, and should be ignored. Specifically, it says "The > P flag is meaningless for link-local prefixes, and any PIO containing the > link-local prefix MUST be ignored as specified in Section 5.5.3 of > [RFC4862]." which causes a reference cycle. > > >>>> > > >>>> We could reorder the bullet points, like so, resulting in the > following: > > >>> … > > >>>> Thoughts?I think we should fix this, but if this is difficult to > fix in AUTH48, I think it's OK not to change it because step a) says "as > described in RFC 9762" and RFC 9762 says that because the prefix is > link-local it should be ignored anyway. And implementers can probably just > ignore the reference cycle because from the text it's sort of clear what to > do anyway. > > >>>> > > >>>> +Erik Kline any thoughts on whether we can fix this in AUTH48? > > >>> > > >>> Original: > > >>> For each Prefix-Information option in the Router Advertisement: > > >>> > > >>> a) If the P flag is set, and the node implements draft-ietf-6man-pio- > > >>> pflag, it SHOULD treat the Autonomous flag as if it was unset, and > > >>> use prefix delegation to obtain addresses as described in draft-ietf- > > >>> 6man-pio-pflag. > > >>> > > >>> b) If the Autonomous flag is not set, silently ignore the Prefix > > >>> Information option. > > >>> > > >>> c) If the prefix is the link-local prefix, silently ignore the Prefix > > >>> Information option. > > >>> > > >>> Current: > > >>> For each Prefix Information Option in the Router Advertisement: > > >>> > > >>> a) If the prefix is the link-local prefix, silently ignore the > > >>> Prefix Information Option. > > >>> > > >>> b) If the P flag is set and the node implements RFC 9762, it > > >>> SHOULD treat the Autonomous flag as if it was unset and use > > >>> prefix delegation to obtain addresses as described in RFC > > >>> 9762. > > >>> > > >>> c) If the Autonomous flag is not set, silently ignore the Prefix > > >>> Information Option. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Authors - Please review the document carefully and contact us with > any further updates you may have. We will await approvals from Lorenzo, > Xiao, David, and *Erik 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) > > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762-lastdiff.html (htmlwdiff > diff between last version and this) > > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762-lastrfcdiff.html > (rfcdiff between last version and this) > > >>> > > >>> Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here: > > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9762 > > >>> > > >>> Thank you, > > >>> RFC Editor/ap > > >>> > > >>>> On May 20, 2025, at 2:16 PM, Alanna Paloma < > apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Hi Erik (AD)*, Lorenzo, and other authors, > > >>>> > > >>>> *Erik - As the AD, please review and approve of the reordered list > items under “NEW TEXT” in Section 9.2. > > >>>> > > >>>> See this diff file: > > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762-ad-diff.html > > >>>> > > >>>> For context, here is Lorenzo’s rationale for this update: > > >>>>> The issue is: according to this text, in step a), if the prefix is > the link-local prefix, then the host should use PD. But elsewhere in this > document (which will become RFC 9762) we say that the P flag is meaningless > for link-local prefixes, and should be ignored. Specifically, it says "The > P flag is meaningless for link-local prefixes, and any PIO containing the > link-local prefix MUST be ignored as specified in Section 5.5.3 of > [RFC4862]." which causes a reference cycle. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> We could reorder the bullet points, like so, resulting in the > following: > > >>>> … > > >>>>> Thoughts?I think we should fix this, but if this is difficult to > fix in AUTH48, I think it's OK not to change it because step a) says "as > described in RFC 9762" and RFC 9762 says that because the prefix is > link-local it should be ignored anyway. And implementers can probably just > ignore the reference cycle because from the text it's sort of clear what to > do anyway. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> +Erik Kline any thoughts on whether we can fix this in AUTH48? > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Original: > > >>>> For each Prefix-Information option in the Router Advertisement: > > >>>> > > >>>> a) If the P flag is set, and the node implements > draft-ietf-6man-pio- > > >>>> pflag, it SHOULD treat the Autonomous flag as if it was unset, and > > >>>> use prefix delegation to obtain addresses as described in > draft-ietf- > > >>>> 6man-pio-pflag. > > >>>> > > >>>> b) If the Autonomous flag is not set, silently ignore the Prefix > > >>>> Information option. > > >>>> > > >>>> c) If the prefix is the link-local prefix, silently ignore the > Prefix > > >>>> Information option. > > >>>> > > >>>> Current: > > >>>> For each Prefix Information Option in the Router Advertisement: > > >>>> > > >>>> a) If the prefix is the link-local prefix, silently ignore the > > >>>> Prefix Information Option. > > >>>> > > >>>> b) If the P flag is set and the node implements RFC 9762, it > > >>>> SHOULD treat the Autonomous flag as if it was unset and use > > >>>> prefix delegation to obtain addresses as described in RFC > > >>>> 9762. > > >>>> > > >>>> c) If the Autonomous flag is not set, silently ignore the Prefix > > >>>> Information Option. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Authors - We have updated the files per the additional changes sent > by Lorenzo. We will await any further changes you may have and approvals > from Lorenzo, Xiao, David, > > >>>> and *Erik 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) > > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762-lastdiff.html > (htmlwdiff diff between last version and this) > > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762-lastrfcdiff.html > (rfcdiff between last version and this) > > >>>> > > >>>> Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here: > > >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9762 > > >>>> > > >>>> Thank you, > > >>>> RFC Editor/ap > > >>>> > > >>>>> On May 19, 2025, at 5:09 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lore...@google.com> > wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Another potential issue I see is in the formal update text of the > RFC 4861 update. The issue is here: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> ========= > > >>>>> NEW TEXT: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> For each Prefix Information Option in the Router Advertisement: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> a) If the P flag is set and the node implements RFC 9762, it > SHOULD treat the Autonomous flag as if it was unset and use prefix > delegation to obtain addresses as described in RFC 9762. > > >>>>> b) If the Autonomous flag is not set, silently ignore the Prefix > Information Option. > > >>>>> c) If the prefix is the link-local prefix, silently ignore the > Prefix Information Option. > > >>>>> ========= > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The issue is: according to this text, in step a), if the prefix is > the link-local prefix, then the host should use PD. But elsewhere in this > document (which will become RFC 9762) we say that the P flag is meaningless > for link-local prefixes, and should be ignored. Specifically, it says "The > P flag is meaningless for link-local prefixes, and any PIO containing the > link-local prefix MUST be ignored as specified in Section 5.5.3 of > [RFC4862]." which causes a reference cycle. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> We could reorder the bullet points, like so, resulting in the > following: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> ========= > > >>>>> NEW TEXT: > > >>>>> For each Prefix Information Option in the Router Advertisement: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> a) If the prefix is the link-local prefix, silently ignore the > Prefix Information Option. > > >>>>> b) If the P flag is set and the node implements RFC 9762, it > SHOULD treat the Autonomous flag as if it was unset and use prefix > delegation to obtain addresses as described in RFC 9762. > > >>>>> c) If the Autonomous flag is not set, silently ignore the Prefix > Information Option. > > >>>>> ========= > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Thoughts?I think we should fix this, but if this is difficult to > fix in AUTH48, I think it's OK not to change it because step a) says "as > described in RFC 9762" and RFC 9762 says that because the prefix is > link-local it should be ignored anyway. And implementers can probably just > ignore the reference cycle because from the text it's sort of clear what to > do anyway. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> +Erik Kline any thoughts on whether we can fix this in AUTH48? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Cheers, > > >>>>> Lorenzo > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 8:54 AM Lorenzo Colitti < > lore...@google.com> wrote: > > >>>>> Hi Alanna, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I would like to suggest the following changes. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Section 7.1: > > >>>>> OLD: > > >>>>> any time a prefix is added to or removed from the list, the client > MUST consider this to be a change in configuration information > > >>>>> NEW: > > >>>>> any time one or more prefix(es) are added to or removed from the > list, the client MUST consider this to be a change in configuration > information > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Rationale: if the RA has more than one prefix in it, the client > should only rebind once. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Section 7.4: > > >>>>> OLD: > > >>>>> When the network delegates unique prefixes to clients, each client > will consider other client's destination addresses to be off-link > > >>>>> NEW: > > >>>>> When the network delegates unique prefixes to clients, each client > will consider other clients's destination addresses to be off-link > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Rationale: "clients" is plural and the apostrophe goes after the s. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Section 11: > > >>>>> OLD: > > >>>>> Implementing the P flag support on a host and receiving side > enables DHCPv6 on that host. > > >>>>> NEW: > > >>>>> Implementing the P flag support on a host and receiving will > enable DHCPv6 on that host if the host receives an RA containing a PIO with > the P bit set. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Rationale: the text doesn't really make sense. Previous versions > of the draft (I checked -06) had "Implementing the P flag support on a host > / receiving side" instead of "Implementing the P flag support on a host and > receiving side". That was slightly better, but I think my new text is > clearer. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Also, I would like to add Patrick Rohr to the acknowledgements > section, since he pointed out one of these issues. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Cheers, > > >>>>> Lorenzo > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 3:16 AM Alanna Paloma < > apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > >>>>> Hi Jen, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Thank you for confirming. Additionally, we have noted your > approval on the AUTH48 status page. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> We will await approvals from Lorenzo, Xiao, and David 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 May 13, 2025, at 9:30 AM, Jen Linkova <furr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 2:17 AM Alanna Paloma > > >>>>>> <apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > >>>>>>> Thank you for your reply. Your approval regarding the BCP 14 key > word update has been noted on the AUTH48 status page: > > >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9762 > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Please note that we are still awaiting the outcome of the > discussion proposed by Jen: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> 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. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I believe Erik marked the erratum as 'Held for the document > update'. > > >>>>>> So the text in RFC4861 is not going to change, and we can proceed > with > > >>>>>> this draft. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On May 12, 2025, at 11:08 PM, Erik Kline <ek.i...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> 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 > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> -- > > >>>>>> Cheers, Jen Linkova > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
