Hi Authors, David - Thank you for your reply. We have updated the files per the nits you pointed out.
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) And we have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9762 All - As we have received all author approvals, we will now ask IANA to update their registry accordingly. After the IANA updates are complete, we will move forward with the publication process. Thank you, RFC Editor/ap > On Jun 10, 2025, at 10:13 AM, David 'equinox' Lamparter <equi...@diac24.net> > wrote: > > Hi Alanna & all, > > > On Thu, Jun 05, 2025 at 08:50:55AM -0700, Alanna Paloma wrote: >> 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 > > I've reread it and I only noticed one language nit that I'd like to > raise: > > Under "7.2. Using Delegated Prefix(es)" > > "The client MAY use the prefix to allow devices directly connected to it > to obtain IPv6 addresses. For example, the client MAY route traffic for > that prefix to **the=>an** interface and send a RA containing a PIO for > the prefix on **the=>that** interface. That interface MUST NOT be the > interface the prefix is obtained from. If the client advertises the > prefix on an interface and it has formed addresses from the prefix, then > it MUST act as though the addresses were assigned to that interface for > the purposes of Neighbor Discovery and Duplicate Address Detection." > > (Note inline marking with **text**) > > This is - boiled down - "the interface, the interface, that interface > MUST NOT be the interface obtained from, an interface, that interface." > > The first 2 "the" are confusing and should be "an" and "that", as is > done later. The only "the" interface here should be "the interface the > prefix is obtained from". The first 2 references to interfaces are the > same in referring to some other interface as in the 2nd half, where > (IMHO correctly) "an" and "that" are used. > > > I don't believe it's absolutely necessary to fix this, I don't see it as > a content/correctness problem, just language that raised a "weird" flag > for me. > > Either way: Approved (with or without this edit). > > Cheers, > > > -David > > > P.S.: I really wasn't sure whether to say something about such a tiny > issue, I hope this doesn't trigger an avalanche... also apologies for > not getting to this earlier :(. -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
