Hello,
On Sat, Mar 29, 2025 at 7:16 AM wrote:
> 1)
Sounds good, thank you!
> 2)
The authors would like to propose the following text:
"For example, if clients assume the [RFC9663] deployment model on a
home network that only receives a /60 from the ISP and each client
obtains a /64 prefix..
Hi Alice,
On Sat, Apr 5, 2025 at 4:53 AM Alice Russo
wrote:
> Authors,
>
> As we prepare this document for publication: May the abbreviated title
> (which appears in the running header of the PDF) be updated as follows or
> otherwise?
>
> Original:
> VENDOR-STATEFUL
>
> Perhaps:
> Vendor-Spe
Greetings Haomian and Stephane,
This is a friendly reminder that we await your review and approval before
continuing with the publication process. Please review the document at the
URLs listed below and let us know if updates are needed.
Thank you,
RFC Editor/sg
> On Apr 2, 2025, at 9:23
Dear Laurence and Carsten,
Thank you for your replies. We have updated our files as follows. Please
review and let us know if any further changes are needed.
Section 4.2.10
OLD:
If the entity is stationary, the heading is NULL.
NEW:
If the entity is stationary, the heading is 'null’.
..
Hi
From: Dhruv Dhody
Date: Sunday, April 6, 2025 at 1:27 PM
To: Alice Russo
Cc: Siva Sivabalan , Zhenghaomian
, Samuel Sidor (ssidor) , Cheng Li
, Zafar Ali (zali) , pce-...@ietf.org
, pce-cha...@ietf.org , Roman Danyliw
, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org ,
RFC Editor
Subject: Re: question -
