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

2025-04-06 Thread Jen Linkova via auth48archive
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..

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

2025-04-18 Thread Jen Linkova via auth48archive
On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 4:23 AM Alanna Paloma wrote: > Authors - Thank you for your reply. We have updated as requested. Please not > that there is one remaining terminology query that has not yet been addressed: > >> b) Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used > >> inco

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

2025-05-13 Thread Jen Linkova via auth48archive
On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 2:17 AM Alanna Paloma wrote: > 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 prop