Hi Warren,
Thank you for approval. We have noted it on the AUTH48 status page:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9693
Best regards,
RFC Editor/ap
> On Dec 16, 2024, at 7:11 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 3:05 PM, Alanna Paloma wrote:
> Hi Gábor and Warren
Hi Arnt,
We believe we have updated the document as desired. Please review and let us
know if additional updates are needed or if you approve the RFC for
publication.
The files are available here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9698.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9698
Greetings,
Tommy - Thanks for sending along your approvals for each of the RFCs to be in
this cluster. We have updated the AUTH48 status pages accordingly.
Just a reminder to everyone that the AUTH48 status pages for this cluster can
be viewed at https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C508.
In loo
Hi Xiaohu,
Thank you for your reply. We have noted your approval of this document on the
AUTH48 status page (http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9703).
Please note that we await responses to the 18 questions that were sent in a
separate email (see "AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9703 for
your review”).
Authors and Suresh (as Document Shepherd),
* Suresh, please reply to #14.
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)
14)
*IMPORTANT*
Updated 2024/12/16
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
Pierluigi and Enrico,
Thank you for your review. If we understand correctly, you are updating your
markdown source file to match the RPC-edited file. You mentioned "can submit
the new, and hopefully final, version" - we are unsure what is meant by "final
version". Please note that while you
Hi,
The term "whitespace" does not appear in
https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2021/NIST.IR.8366.pdf
This is in contrast to whitelist, where the more useful term is "allow
list".
The term whitespace originates from the fact that most newspapers are black
text on white background, although the
Hi Yingzhen and Acee,
Thank you both for your replies! We have updated the files and posted them
below. All of our questions have been addressed. Please see one followup
comment in this thread under question 3.
Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make
chang
Hi Neil,
Thank you for your reply! We will keep the text as is.
Since we have received your approval, we consider AUTH48 complete (see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9610).
Thank you for your attention and guidance during the AUTH48 process! We will
prepare the document for publication a
On Sun, Dec 15, 2024, 20:24 Neil Jenkins wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Dec 2024, at 14:50, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
> Just on the question of use of "whitespace":
> I concur that it's a term of art, and that even if we were to try to
> neutralize it by referencing ABNF, ABNF also calls it whitespace (i
On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 3:05 PM, Alanna Paloma wrote:
> Hi Gábor and Warren (AD)*,
>
> *Warren - As the AD, please review and approve of the updated key word in
> Section 4.4:
>
> Original:
> [RFC4814] REQUIRES pseudorandom port numbers, which the authors believe is
> a good approximation of the
Hi!
Here are some additional comments on top of Jari's.
I removed the parts where we agreed.
>> a) We believe the single quote following the abbreviation is used to
>> indicate the "improved" method described in RFC 5448 (as opposed to
>> basic EAP-AKA from RFC 4187). If this is so, should "impr
Hi RFC Editor,
See a couple places where a response is needed.
> On Dec 13, 2024, at 12:40 AM, Yingzhen Qu wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for working on this document. Please see my reply below inline.
>
> For the Abstract, I'm thinking of a few minor changes:
> old:
> This document defines two
Dear Eliot,
thanks for your feedback. Below in-line our remarks. If all is good, we will
upload the next version (25), where all the remaining issues are fixed.
Thanks!
Pierluigi and Enrico
From: Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)
Sent: 12 Decemb
Please do not upload a new version. We are done with drafts at this
stage. Now there is a draft RFC from which further work must proceed.
Instead, please respond directly to the RFC Editor's questions, either
in the positive, in the negative, or with an alternate propose of the form:
Secti
I want you to update my Name to JOEL JOSEPH connect information
+2348144237688 _ chosengod...@gmail.com
On Mon, Dec 16, 2024, 5:42 PM Alanna Paloma via auth48archive <
auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> Hi Warren,
>
> Thank you for approval. We have noted it on the AUTH48 status page:
> http
Hi, Peter.
Please note that this document awaits your review and approval. Please review
via the links below, and let us know whether you approve this document for
publication in its current form or additional changes are needed.
The latest files are posted here. Please refresh your browser:
Hi Megan / RFC Editor team,
I can confirm that all desired updates appear as intended, but I don’t want to
voice my approval to go ahead yet because there’s still one missing item:
fixing the capitalization (which really applies to all three documents).
I am halfway (or perhaps a bit more) thro
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 4:54 AM wrote:
> Authors and Suresh (as Document Shepherd),
>
> * Suresh, please reply to #14.
>
> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary)
> the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>
> 1)
>
>
Dhruv: Ok
>
> 2)
>
Please update Mallory's email to malloryk@socialweb.foundation
On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 12:44 PM Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 4:54 AM wrote:
>
>> Authors and Suresh (as Document Shepherd),
>>
>> * Suresh, please reply to #14.
>>
>> While reviewing this document during AUT
Dear editors,
I have resolved all the questions inline with your email starting with
"weiyh>>>", I appreciate your further comments.
In adition, I believe in "5.10. In-Band Reachability of Nodes",
"-- the spine nodes in Figure 9 -- " SHOULD BE "-- the spine nodes in Figure
11 -- "
Thank you!
Be
22 matches
Mail list logo
