[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9731 for your review

Hi, On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 11:09 AM wrote: > Authors, > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) > the following questions, which are also in the XML file. > > 1) > > Dhruv: ACTN, SDN, TE > > 2) > > Dhruv: Add reference to RFC 8453 is fine. > > 3) >

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9707 for your review

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) >

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9707 for your review

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

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9707 for your review

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

[auth48] Re: No longer at CDT (Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9707 for your review)

Hi, Last suggestion. I have discussed this with Mirja as well OLD: The analysis presented in [RAMESH-1 ] has shown various problems that lead to data leaks, such as leakage of IPv6 traffic, non-browser traffic, or tunnel failure, not u

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

Hi Sandy, On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 10:45 AM Sandy Ginoza wrote: > Hi Aijun, > > We question whether sourcecode type=“abnf" is correct because Section 2.1 > includes the following: > > 2.1. Use of RBNF > >The message formats in this document are illustrated using Routing >Backus-Naur For

[auth48] Re: question - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9752 for your review

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

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9731 for your review

Hi Megan, Sorry for a late reply. I have done a full check! There is an error in the YANG file which is leading to a YANG validation error. -- OLD: reference "RFC 8454: Information Model for Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN)"; "RFC 8795: YANG Data

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

Thanks to the editors and Adrian for responding. Please mark my approval as well. Thanks! Dhruv On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 2:30 AM Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi, > > With the changes in the other thread, I approve this document. > > Thanks for your work. > Adrian > > -Original Message- > From:

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

Hi Alanna, I have verified the AUTH48 changes and it is ready to be published! Thanks! Dhruv On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 4:04 AM Alanna Paloma wrote: > Hi Adrian and Dhruv, > > Thank you for your replies. We have updated the files accordingly. We > note that you have both sent your approvals; howe

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9753 for your review

Hi Sandy, One tiny nit, We have one instance of "PCinit message" and one instance of "PCinitiate message"; please change both to PCInitiate message (as per RFC 8281) Thanks! Dhruv On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 9:11 PM Sandy Ginoza wrote: > Hi Cheng, > > Thank you for reply. We have updated the text