New Local Endpoint
On Thu, 19 Dec 2024, 6:13 am Michael Welzl via auth48archive, <
auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> Dear RFC Editor staff,
>
> I agree with all the changes in all the files. I also agree with this
> comment from Colin:
> ***
> RFC 9621 Section 4.1.4, first paragraph (“Initia
Dear RFC Editor staff,
I agree with all the changes in all the files. I also agree with this comment
from Colin:
***
RFC 9621 Section 4.1.4, first paragraph (“Initiate”) ends with “occurs in
response to the calling Initiate” (changed from “…to the Initiate call”) but
should perhaps say “…in res
Hi Reese,
Many thanks for your thorough check! Please see my answers below.
ALL: I give quite long answers to the “Cellular” and “Protocol Instance” ”
questions below because they serve as a great example to explain what I’ve
done, and why. Maybe you want to read this and chime in.
> On Dec
Hi Lynne,
On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 1:12 AM Lynne Bartholomew
wrote:
> Hi, Dhruv.
>
> Thank you for your prompt replies!
>
> Thanks also for the updated email address for Mallory. Is "Center for
> Democracy and Technology" in Appendix C still correct?
>
>
Dhruv: Mallory has responded to this and
> Also, I think it’s fair to say that, at this point, each and every one of you
> owes me a beer :-)))
>
> Possibly more than one – this was a ton of work!
>
:-)
We should include Megan (and colleagues? I have no idea about how the RFC
Editor team is set up) too, her / their work was nothing s
Authors,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the
following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
Thank you.
RFC Editor/kf/kc
On Dec 18, 2024, at 6:30 PM, rfc-edi...@rf
*IMPORTANT*
Updated 2024/12/18
RFC Author(s):
--
Instructions for Completing AUTH48
Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
If an author is no longer available, there are sever
Hi Michael, Megan, all
Thank you for taking on the monumental task of figuring out the
capitalization. We indeed owe you a beer, Michael.
I looked at the differences in RFC-to-be-9622 and 9623, and most of the
changes look good to me, except for the cases below.
I'm not quite sure about th
Martijn,
Thank you for your reply. We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 page for
this document (https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9639) and will publish this
document shortly.
Thank you for your careful review.
RFC Editor/ar
> On Dec 17, 2024, at 10:33 PM, Martijn van Beurden wrote:
On 17 Dec 2024, at 18:34, Michael Welzl wrote:
Dear all,
I am now finished with the capitalization task for the entire cluster.
I’m attaching “before” and “after” versions of the XML files
(filenames “-OLD.xml” and “-NEW.xml”).
I would like to say that I approve publication (as Megan wrote,
Hi Bron,
We don’t believe we have heard from you regarding this document’s readiness for
publication. Please review and let us know if any updates are needed or if you
approve the RFC for publication. The files are available at the URLs listed
below. We will wait to hear from you before conti
1. Noted at
https://github.com/ietf-wg-add/draft-ietf-add-split-horizon-authority/issues/70
2. Approved
3. The current text is clear but not consistent: ".home.arpa" and ".local" are
written dot-first, and "resolver.arpa." and "ipv4only.arpa." are written
dot-last. I don't have a strong prefe
Hi Shraddha, Mukul, and Samson,
Mukul and Samson - Thank you for your replies. We have marked your approval on
the AUTH48 status page for this document (see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9703). We will assume your assent to any
further changes submitted by your coauthors unless we hear o
Dear Paul (AD) and *Authors,
Thank you for providing your approval - it has been noted on the AUTH48 status
page (https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9679).
*Authors, all approvals have been received. Please let us know if you want to
add any key words (beyond those that appear in the title).
Michael,
Thank you for sending along the files updated with the capitalization guidance
in response to our cluster-wide query. We have adopted these files and posted
them below. Note that we have made no changes to the file submitted.
Please review the files carefully as we do not make change
Michael,
Thank you for sending along the files updated with the capitalization guidance
in response to our cluster-wide query. We have adopted these files and posted
them below.
We had one follow up when reviewing this file:
-with the updates to capitalization, Section 1.4 (Glossary of Key T
Hi, Mallory.
Is "Mallory Knodel (IAB, Center for Democracy and Technology)" in Appendix C of
RFC-to-be 9707 still correct (because it was your affiliation at the time), or
should we update your affiliation? If you'd like to update, please provide the
correct affiliation information.
Thank you
Michael,
Thank you for sending along these files and the guidance! We have sent replies
to the individual document threads and copied them below for everyone’s
convenience.
We believe all of our queries have been addressed for the documents in this
cluster at this time.
The AUTH48 status pa
Michael,
Thank you for sending along the files updated with the capitalization guidance
in response to our cluster-wide query. We have adopted these files and posted
them below.
Note: We have made a single update to include a comma in the second sentence of
the second paragraph in Section 9.1
Hi, Dhruv.
Thank you for your prompt replies!
Thanks also for the updated email address for Mallory. Is "Center for
Democracy and Technology" in Appendix C still correct?
We have a few more follow-up items for you:
= = = = =
Regarding this question and your reply:
>> 12)
>
>
>
> Dhruv:
Thanks for the reminder,
Approved.
Paul
On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 2:07 PM Karen Moore wrote:
> Hi Paul (AD),
>
> This is a reminder to please review the updates to the sourcecode in
> Section 6 and let us know if you approve; see
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679-auth48diff.html.
>
>
Hi Paul (AD),
This is a reminder to please review the updates to the sourcecode in Section 6
and let us know if you approve; see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9679-auth48diff.html.
Note from Orie:
> The example of EDN was changed during auth48 but the encoded hex was not
> updated. I c
I also don't have any other comments and it's approved from my side.
Thank you,
Samson
On Wed, Dec 18, 2024, 21:45 Mukul Srivastava wrote:
> I have no further comments.
>
> Approved from my side.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Mukul
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> *From: *Shraddha Hegde
> *Date: *Wed
I have no further comments.
Approved from my side.
Thanks
Mukul
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Shraddha Hegde
Date: Wednesday, December 18, 2024 at 6:40 AM
To: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org , Mukul Srivastava
, kapil...@gmail.com ,
samson@gmail.com , xuxiaohu_i...@hotmail.com
Cc: mpls-...
Hi Authors,
Zheng - We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page (please see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9696).
Yuehua - Thank you for your quick reply! We have updated the document to
reflect your proposed change in the updated files below.
Please review the document careful
Hi,
Thanks for the edits. Pls see inline for response tagged by
Rgds
Shraddha
Juniper Business Use Only
-Original Message-
From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org
Sent: 14 December 2024 05:46
To: Shraddha Hegde ; Mukul Srivastava ;
kapil...@gmail.com; samson@gmail.com; xuxiaohu_i...@hot
26 matches
Mail list logo
