[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9701 for your review

Hi Torsten, Thank you for your reply. We have updated the files accordingly. The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9701.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9701.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9701.html https://www.rfc-editor.

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9689 for your review

Hi Quintin, Thank you for your reply. We have updated your email address and noted your approval. The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9689.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9689.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9689.html https:

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9686 for your review

All, Lorenzo’s approval has been noted on the AUTH48 status page. With this, we have now received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9686 Thank you for your attention and guidance during the AUTH48 process. We will move this document forwa

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9689 for your review

All, Robin’s and King’s approvals have been noted on the AUTH48 status page. With this, we have now received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9689 Thank you for your attention and guidance during the AUTH48 process. We will move this docu

[auth48] [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9693 for your review

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 distribution of the source port numbers a NATxy gateway on t

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9701 for your review

Hi Torsten, Thank you for your approval. We have noted it on the AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9701 Once we receive Vladimir’s approval, we will move this document forward in the publication process. Best regards, RFC Editor/ap > On Dec 8, 2024, at 7:49 AM, tors...@l

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9701 for your review

Hi Vladimir, Thank you for your approval. It has been noted: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9701 We will now ask IANA to update their registry accordingly. After the IANA updates are complete, we will move forward with the publication process. Best regards, RFC Editor/ap > On Dec 9, 2024

[auth48] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9701 for your review

IANA, Please update your registries as follows to match the edited document at https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9701-diff.html. 1) Please remove the periods from the following descriptions in the "OAuth Dynamic Client Registration Metadata” registry

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9705 for your review

Hi Chandra, Thank you for your reply. We have updated as requested. The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9705.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9705.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9705.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/autho

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9693 for your review

Hi Gábor and Keiichi, Thank you for your replies and for handling the email issues. As all our outstanding questions have been addressed, we will await any further changes you may have and approval from each author prior to moving this document forward in the publication process. The files ha

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9693 for your review

Hi Gábor and Keiichi, We have now received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9693 Thank you for your attention and guidance during the AUTH48 process. We will move this document forward in the publication process at this time. RFC Editor/a

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9692 for your review

Hi Jordan, Thank you for your reply. We have updated the files accordingly. Please note that we have some follow ups regarding the document’s SVG and artwork. > 37) > > jhead>> I was able to do this for Figures 13 and 18. However, it is not > possible to address Figure 3. Let’s just add the p

[auth48] Re: [IANA #1412219] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9716 for your review

Hi Amanda, The changes look good. Thank you! RFC Editor/ap > On Feb 3, 2025, at 4:38 PM, Amanda Baber via RT wrote: > > Hi all, > > These changes are complete: > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters > > thanks, > > Amanda Baber > IANA Operations Manager > > On Mon F

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9716 for your review

Authors, We have now received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9716 Thank you for your attention and guidance during the AUTH48 process. We will move this document forward in the publication process at this time. Best regards, RFC Editor/

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9716 for your review

Hi Authors, Kapil’s and Nagendra’s approvals have been noted: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9716 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 Feb 1, 2025,

[auth48] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9716 for your review

IANA, Please update your registries as follows to match the edited document at https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9716-diff.html. 1) Please update the Sub-TLV Names in the “Sub-TLVs for TLV Types 1, 16, and 21” registry

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9705 for your review

Hi Tarek, Thank you for your approval. It has been noted on the AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9705 Best regards, RFC Editor/ap > On Feb 1, 2025, at 7:16 PM, Tarek Saad wrote: > > Hi Alanna, > Thanks for the suggested edits to the document. I’ve gone through the diff

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9729 for your review

Hi David, Thank you for your reply. We have updated as requested. > 4) > > I think the inconsistency is intentional: "key ID" refers to the concept, > whereas "Key ID" refers to the eponymous field in the Key Exporter Context > structure. Does that work or do you think it reduces clarity? )

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9729 for your review

Hi David, Thank you for your reply. We have updated the files with your additional tweaks and noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9729 The updated files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9729.md https

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9705 for your review

Hi Ina and Dante, This is a friendly reminder that we await your reviews and approvals of the updated files. The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9705.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9705.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9705.

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9692 for your review

Hi Tony, Jordan, and Dmitry, Just another friendly reminder that the document awaits your approvals. Once we have received your approvals, we will move this document forward in the publication process. The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9692.

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9729 for your review

Hi David, Thank you for your reply. Your approval has been noted: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9729 We await Jonathan’s approval of the content. Best regards, RFC Editor/ap > On Feb 9, 2025, at 7:56 AM, David Oliver wrote: > > Wonderful. You have my approval on the recent updates o

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9692 for your review

Hi Jordan and Tony, Thank you for your replies. Jordan’s approval and Tony’s delay have been noted on the AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9692 Best regards, RFC Editor/ap > On Feb 10, 2025, at 10:19 AM, Jordan Head wrote: > > Hi Alanna, > I approve. > Thanks > >

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9705 for your review

Hi Chandra, Thank you for your reply. We have updated the files accordingly and noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9705 Once we receive approvals from Tarek, Ina, and Dante, we will move this document forward in the publication process. The file

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9705 for your review

Hi Authors, Just another friendly reminder that we await your reviews and approvals of the updated files prior to moving this document forward in the publication process. The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9705.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/a

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9701 for your review

All, We have now received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9701 As this document is part of Cluster C444, you may track the progress of all documents in this cluster through AUTH48 at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C444 We will move

[auth48] Re: [IANA #1408111] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9701 for your review

The changes look good. Thank you! > On Dec 11, 2024, at 9:46 PM, Amanda Baber via RT wrote: > > Hi, > > These changes are complete: > > On Mon Dec 09 21:54:43 2024, apal...@amsl.com wrote: >> IANA, >> >> Please update your registries as follows to match the edited document >> at https://www.r

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9693 for your review

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

[auth48] Re: What's next? -- Re: Second part -- Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9693 for your review

Hi Gábor, We replied to your email on December 9 with the files updated per your replies and some follow-up questions. Please see: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/VcgOxIQhPu59cV53YKlHSv-0d4E/ As we have already received approval from Warren (AD), we are awaiting responses to

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9692 for your review

Hi Pascal, Thank you for your reply. The files have been updated accordingly. Additionally, we have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document. As there are questions that have not yet been addressed, we will assume your approval stands even after your coauthors submit furt

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9692 for your review

Hi Tony, Jordan, and Dmitry, This is a friendly reminder that we await your reviews and approvals of the updated files. Once we have received your approvals, we will move this document forward in the publication process. The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.o

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9705 for your review

Hi Authors, This is another friendly reminder that we await your reviews and approvals of the updated files. The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9705.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9705.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9705.

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9716 for your review

Hi Shraddha, Thank you for your reply. We have updated the files as requested. The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9716.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9716.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9716.html https://www.rfc-edit

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9716 for your review

Hi Shraddha, Samson, and Mukul, Thank you for your approvals. They have been noted on the AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9716 Once we receive approvals from Kapil and Nagendra, we will move this document forward in the publication process. Best regards, RFC Editor/ap

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9692 for your review

Hi Tony, Jordan, and Dmitry, This is another friendly reminder that we await your reviews and approvals of the updated files. The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9692.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9692.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9692 for your review

Hi Bruno, Your approval has been noted on the AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9692 Once we receive approvals from Tony, Jordan, Alankar, and Dmitry, we will move this document forward in the publication process. Thank you, RFC Editor/ap > On Jan 14, 2025, at 4:30 AM, B

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9692 for your review

Hi Jordan, > ) To improve the SVG output in the HTML and PDF files, we suggest the > following. Please let us know which you would prefer: > (a) put the ASCII art into the HTML and PDF files, i.e., match Fig 14 and 29 > from rfc9692.txt or > (b) redraw the figures with another app to make new SV

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9692 for your review

Authors, Thank you for the updated XML file and for resolving the spacing issue As all of our questions have been addressed, we will await any further changes you may have and approvals from Tony, Jordan, Alankar, Bruno, and Dmitry prior to moving this document forward in the publication proce

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9705 for your review

Hi Chandra, The files have been updated per your request. The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9705.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9705.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9705.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9705.pdf

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9705 for your review

Greetings, We do not believe we have heard from you regarding this document's readiness for publication. Please review our previous messages describing the AUTH48 process and containing any document-specific questions we may have had. We will wait to hear from you before continuing with the pub

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9693 for your review

Hi Gábor and Keiichi, This is a friendly reminder that we await your response to our follow-up questions: > But both of them are rather lengthy. Thus, the best title could be simply: > "Benchmarking Methodology for Stateful NATxy Gateways" > Rationale: This RFC will be the first one talking abou

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9692 for your review

Hi Alankar, Thank you for your approval. It has been noted: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9692 Best regards, RFC Editor/ap > On Jan 14, 2025, at 8:53 AM, Alankar Sharma wrote: > > Please record my approval. Thanks for all the hard work. > > Regards, > Alankar > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2025

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9705 for your review

Authors, This is a friendly reminder that we await your reviews and approvals of the updated files. The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9705.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9705.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9705.html http

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9729 for your review

Authors, We have noted Jonathan’s approval on the AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9729 As the content of the document has been approved, we now ask that each author review and approve of the formatting in the output files below. The files have been posted here (please r

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9729 for your review

Hi David, Thank you. Your approval has been noted: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9729 We ask that both David and Jonathan also review and approve of the formatting. Best regards, RFC Editor/ap > On Feb 11, 2025, at 3:02 PM, David Schinazi wrote: > > Thanks Alanna. > > I updated our l

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9729 for your review

Hi David, > 1) IANA registries. I see that the links to the registries no longer include > the anchor that points to the registry. Was that intentional? Yes, this was intentional. This update was made per guidance from IANA that that only the short version of the URL should be used. Please see

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9692 for your review

All, As Dmitry indicated he reviewed the document and sent his approval, we have added him back as an author. At this time, we would appreciate a positive confirmation from at least one other author indicating that there are no objections. We will then continue with publication of this docume

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9692 for your review

Hi Authors, Thank you for confirming. We will continue forward with the publication of this document. Best regards, RFC Editor/ap > On Mar 18, 2025, at 9:42 PM, Antoni Przygienda wrote: > > No objection > > Juniper Business Use Only > From: Pascal Thubert > Date: Tuesday, 18 March 2025 at

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9762 for your review

Hi Authors and Erik (AD)*, *Erik - We have updated “MUST not” to “MUST NOT” in the sentence below. As the AD, please review and approve of this BCP 14 key word update. Original: In particular, enabling or disabling the P flag MUST not trigger automatic changes in the A flag value set by t

[auth48] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9757 for your review

IANA, Please update your registries as follows to match the edited document at https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9757-diff.html. 1) Please update the capitalization of the Name for the following Bit in the “PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV” registry

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9762 for your review

Hi Jen, Thank you for clarifying. We’ve updated to use “prefix delegation”. 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/au

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9762 for your review

Hi Authors and Erik (AD)*, This is a friendly reminder that we are awaiting your responses to our follow-up queries. *Erik - We have updated “MUST not” to “MUST NOT” in the sentence below. As the AD, please review and approve of this BCP 14 key word update. Original: In particular, enabling

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9762 for your review

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

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9762 for your review

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 chan

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9721 for your review

Hi Neeraj, Thank you for the updated XML file. We have updated the other files accordingly. The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9721.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9721.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9721.html https://w

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9721 for your review

Hi Authors, Thank you for your replies. We have noted approvals from Aparna, Avinash, Jorge, John, and Ali on the AUTH48 status page. We have now received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9721 Thank you for your attention and guidance

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9733 for your review

Hi Authors, We do not believe we have heard from you regarding this document's readiness for publication. Please review our previous messages describing the AUTH48 process and containing any document-specific questions we may have had. We will wait to hear from you before continuing with the p

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9705 for your review

Hi Ina and Dante, This is another friendly reminder that we await your reviews and approvals of the updated files. The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9705.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9705.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rf

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9757 for your review

Hi Authors and John (AD)*, We have noted approvals from Sheng, Chun, and Boris on the AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9757 *John - It seems the authors have been unable to contact Ren Tan for his approval. As noted in the RFC Editor FAQ

[auth48] Re: [E] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9705 for your review

Hi Ina, We do not believe we have heard from you regarding this document's readiness for publication. Please review the updated files and let us know if you have any further changes. We will move this document forward in the publication process once we’ve received your approval. The files hav

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9757 for your review

Hi Authors and John (AD), Thank you for your replies. John’s approval has been noted on the AUTH48 status page, and we have updated the files accordingly. Please note that we have a follow-up query: > 4) [WAJ]: No, here "their" refers to the PCEP Speakers (PCE or PCC). Then, > keep the previou

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9757 for your review

Hi John, We are just following up for your confirmation that Ren Tan should be moved to the Contributors section. Thank you, RFC Editor/ap > On Mar 6, 2025, at 4:56 PM, John Scudder wrote: > > Thanks for the info, Alanna. > > Authors — if you have any input for me regarding the most approp

[auth48] [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9692 for your review

Hi Authors and Jim (AD), Authors - We have not yet heard from Dmitry Afanasiev. Do you have updated contact information you can share? Jim - As this document has been in AUTH48 since December 2024 and the remaining coauthors have already approved the RFC for publication, please consider whethe

[auth48] [AD] Re: [E] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9705 for your review

Hi Authors and Jim (AD), Authors - We have not yet heard from Ina Minei. Do you have updated contact information you can share? Jim - As this document has been in AUTH48 since December 2024 and the remaining coauthors have already approved the RFC for publication, please consider whether you w

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9757 for your review

Hi Authors and John (AD), With John’s confirmation, we have removed Ren Tan as an author and moved his name to the Contributors section. The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9757.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9757.txt https://www

[auth48] Re: [IANA #1414612] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9757 for your review

Hi Sabrina, Just one nit. Please update "NATIVE IP” to "Native IP” in the "PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV” registry . Old: Bit Name 30 NATIVE IP New: Bit Name 30 Native IP Diff file is here: https://www.rfc-edito

[auth48] Re: [IANA #1414612] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9757 for your review

No worries. All updates look good now. Thank you! > On Mar 11, 2025, at 9:18 PM, Sabrina Tanamal via RT > wrote: > > Hi Alanna, > > Sorry I missed that; this is fixed: > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep > > Thanks, > Sabrina > > On Tue Mar 11 20:10:45 2025, apal...@staff.rfc-editor.

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9757 for your review

All, As we have received all necessary approvals and IANA has completed its updates, we now consider AUTH48 complete: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9757 Thank you for your attention and guidance during the AUTH48 process. We will move this document forward in the publication process at th

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9757 for your review

Hi Aijun and John, Thank you for your replies. The files have been updated accordingly. > On Mar 4, 2025, at 6:37 PM, Aijun Wang wrote: > > One minor question, should the table 4 in > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9757.html#section-13.4add another > column, to point also to RFC 9757?

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9756 for your review

Hi Authors, Thank you to Dhruv for confirming the AUTH48 changes. We have now received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9756 Thank you for your attention and guidance during the AUTH48 process. We will move this document forward in the p

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9756 for your review

Hi Adrian and Dhruv, Thank you for your replies. We have updated the files accordingly. We note that you have both sent your approvals; however, we ask that at least one author review the updates and confirm that the document is ready for publication. The files have been posted here (please r

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9756 for your review

Hi Adrian and Dhruv, Thank you for your replies. We have updated the files accordingly. We note that you have both sent your approvals; however, we ask that at least one author review the updates and confirm that the document is ready for publication. The files have been posted here (please r

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9692 for your review

Hi Tony, Thank you for your review and reply. The files have been updated accordingly, and we have noted your approval. FYI - To reflect your suggested update to similar text, we have also updated the text below. Please let us know of any objections. Previous: then CLEANUP, PUSH UpdateZTPOffe

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9729 for your review

Authors, David’s and Jonathan’s approvals of the formatting have been noted. We have now received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9729 Thank you for your attention and guidance during the AUTH48 process. We will move this document forwar

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9733 for your review

Hi David. Thank you for your reply. We have made additional updates per your response to our follow-up questions. The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9733.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9733.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/author

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9705 for your review

Hi Ina and Dante, We do not believe we have heard from you regarding this document's readiness for publication. Please review the updated files and let us know if you have any further changes. We will move this document forward in the publication process once we’ve received your approvals. Th

[auth48] Re: [E] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9705 for your review

Hi Dante, Thank you for your reply. Your approval has been noted: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9705 Once we receive Ina’s approval, we will move this document forward in the publication process. Best regards, RFC Editor/ap > On Feb 24, 2025, at 9:59 AM, Pacella, Dante J > wrote: > >

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9733 for your review

Hi David, Thank you for your replies. We have updated as requested. Please note that we have some follow-up notes/questions. ) To have a 1:1 matchup with the acronym and expansion of “BRSKI-AE” and to reflect how it is expanded elsewhere in the document we have further updated your suggested

[auth48] Re: [IANA #1413761] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9733 for your review

The update looks good. Thank you! > On Feb 25, 2025, at 4:20 PM, Amanda Baber via RT wrote: > > Hi, > > This change is complete: > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers > > thanks, > > Amanda Baber > IANA Operations Manager > > On Tue Feb 25 18:51:59 2025, apal...@st

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9733 for your review

All, We have now received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9733 Thank you for your attention and guidance during the AUTH48 process. We will move this document forward in the publication process at this time. RFC Editor/ap > On Feb 25, 2

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9733 for your review

Hi David, Steffen, and Hendrik, Thank you for your replies and approvals. They have been noted: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9733 We will now ask IANA to update their registry accordingly. After the IANA updates are complete, we will move forward with the publication process. Best regar

[auth48] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9733 for your review

IANA, Please update the formatting of the acronym and citation in the Description of the following service name in the “Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry" as follows. Old: Se

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9762 for your review

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-edito

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9762 for your review

Hi Erik, 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) > > There is no conflict in sp

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9789 for your review

Hi Matthew, Thank you for your input. We have updated the files accordingly (see below). We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status page prior to moving this document forward in the publication process: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9789 — FILES (please refresh

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9762 for your review

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 issu

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9790 for your review

Hi James, Loa, and other authors, James - Thank you for your approval. It has been noted on the AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9790 Authors - We have updated the files per Loa’s updated text (see below). We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 s

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9789 for your review

Hi Loa and other authors, Thank you for your reply. We have updated the files accordingly. Please note that we are awaiting word from Stewart and/or Matthew regarding the question below. > 3) Regarding the following question, we have updated per Tony’s suggestion, > but we will wait for Stewa

[auth48] [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9790 for your review

Hi Matthew, Greg, and James (AD)*, *James - As the AD, please review and approve of the updated text and removal of the BCP 14 keyword “MUST”. Original: Post-stack Header (PSH): optional field of interest to the egress Label Switching Router (LSR) (and possibly to transit LSRs). E

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9791 for your review

Hi Greg and other authors, Thank you for responding to our questions. We have updated the document accordingly (see files listed below). Regarding the question below, we have not updated the title and will await input from Tarek, Kiran, and/or Haoyu. > 2) — FILES (please refresh) — Updat

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9791 for your review

Hi Tarek and Kiran, As Greg and Haoyu have indicated that they both have no preference, please let us know if/how the title of this document should be updated. > 2) Thank you, RFC Editor/ap > On May 19, 2025, at 2:27 PM, Haoyu Song wrote: > > Hi Alanna, > > For the remaining question, I'm

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9762 for your review

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 upd

[auth48] [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9790 for your review

Hi Matthew, Loa, Jie, and James (AD)*, *James - As the AD, please review and approve of the definitions updated by Jie. Original: Label Stack: For an MPLS packet, all labels (four-octet fields) after the Layer 2 header, up to and including the label with the Bottom of Stack bit set

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9787 for your review

Hi Alexey and other authors, We have updated the files per Alexey's response. Please note that 19 questions have not yet been addressed and we have a follow-up question. >> 16) > I am not sure. As long as we are clear that "choose" doesn't mean a pop up > asking user to choose, that is probab

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9788 for your review

Hi Alexey and other authors, We have updated the files per Alexey’s response. Please note that some of our initial questions have not been addressed and we have follow-up questions. >> 7) > Slight change in meaning. We are not typically talking about legacy > recipients, as any recipient can

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9789 for your review

Hi Loa and Matthew, You approvals have been noted on the AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9789 Once we receive Stewart’s approval, we will move this document forward in the publication process. Thank you, RFC Editor/ap > On May 22, 2025, at 3:08 AM, Matthew Bocci (Noki

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9789 for your review

Hi Tony, Thank you for your approval. It has been noted on the AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9789 We will await approvals from Loa, Stewart, and Matthew proper to moving this document forward in the publication process. Best regards, RFC Editor/ap > On May 20, 2025,

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9790 for your review

Hi Greg, Thank you for your approval. It has been noted on the AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9790 We will await approvals from Kireeti, Stewart, Matthew, Loa, and Jie prior to moving this document forward in the publication process. Best regards, RFC Editor/ap > On

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9788 for your review

Authors, Thank you for your replies. We have updated as requested. Please note that we have a number of follow-up comments/questions. >>> ) We have a couple of questions regarding the index. >>> a. We note that there is a lot of index linking throughout the document. >>> For it to be most usef

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9787 for your review

Authors, This is a friendly reminder that we are await your replies to the following questions: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 19) 20) 21) 22) 24) 25) 26) 27) 28) Daniel and Bernie - Please n

  1   2   >