Authors,
Just a friendly reminder that this document awaits author action.
Please see the AUTH48 status page at http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9678.
Thank you.
RFC Editor/mf
> On Nov 8, 2024, at 1:41 PM, Megan Ferguson wrote:
>
> Jari,
>
> Thanks for your reply. We look forward to
Hi Michael and Gorry,
We have compiled our changes in response to both Michael’s email below and
Gorry’s message about the <> tagging (see the 9621 email thread) in our
postings below.
Just a few notes:
1) Please review our updates to remove <> as suggested in Gorry’s mail. We
*think* we’v
Authors,
Just a friendly reminder that this document awaits author action.
Please see the AUTH48 status page at http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9626.
Thank you.
RFC Editor/mf
> On Nov 4, 2024, at 3:54 PM, Megan Ferguson wrote:
>
> Authors,
>
> Please see mail below regarding this doc
Authors,
Just a friendly reminder that this document awaits author action.
Please see the AUTH48 status page at http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9627.
Thank you.
RFC Editor/mf
> On Nov 4, 2024, at 3:54 PM, Megan Ferguson wrote:
>
> [Removing Ben and adding Zahed and Murray]
>
> Author
Authors,
Just a friendly reminder that this document awaits author action.
Please see the AUTH48 status page at http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9628.
Thank you.
RFC Editor/mf
> On Nov 4, 2024, at 3:54 PM, Megan Ferguson wrote:
>
> Authors,
>
> Please see mail below regarding this doc
All,
This update to the title has been incorporated into our current version of the
files as requested. We will update the references in 9621 and 9623 that point
to this document as well.
The files have been posted here (please refresh):
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9622.txt
https://w
Authors,
Just an FYI that we have updated the files to include the title change to
RFC-to-be 9622 in the reference entry. You may review the change in the files
below.
Please also review the short/running title using TAPS and let us know if/how
this should be updated as it has been changed in
Hi Michael,
Thank you for your reply and guidance to our questions as well as spotting the
other issues. We have updated as requested in your last two mails.
Please review the files carefully as we do not make changes after publication.
The files have been posted here (please refresh):
ht
All,
Thank you for your replies. We have updated the title and the lists as
discussed below.
The files have been posted here (please refresh):
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9622.txt
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9622.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9622.html
http
All,
Just duplicating the message to the cluster-wide message in this thread as well
for convenience/completeness:
Hi Gorry and Michael,
Thanks for sending along the file for RFC 9621 updated for consistency.
We used that version and added in the other cluster-wide update to use
multistream
Hi Gorry and Michael,
Thanks for sending along the file for RFC 9621 updated for consistency.
We used that version and added in the other cluster-wide update to use
multistream (closed compound) as well as the changes Gorry requested.
We believe the only outstanding issue for this document is
Good idea, Michael,
That is what I have tracking at the AUTH48 status pages for each doc (you can
see the notes for the docs in the cluster all together at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C508).
RFC 9621: agree with your assessment.
RFC 9622: agree (please also see document-specific questio
Yes! That was my thought, but I could not locate it!
I have updated the AUTH48 status page of 9622 to reflect this
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9622).
Thanks, Michael!
> On Dec 9, 2024, at 11:51 AM, Michael Welzl wrote:
>
> Hi !
>
> About question 42 below: I’m not sure if this
Hi Reese (and Michael),
Thanks for pointing these out. We have updated as requested.
Two notes:
1) FYI: We did a little digging for the strange break in “implementation”; it
seems to be related to this issue
(https://github.com/ietf-tools/xml2rfc/issues/532). We ended up updating the
list
Hi Jari,
Just a friendly reminder that this document awaits your approval. Please see
the mail below for links to the current version and let us know if we can be of
assistance as you complete your AUTH48 review.
Thank you.
RFC Editor/mf
> On Jan 22, 2025, at 12:15 PM, Megan Ferguson
> wr
Hi Luigi and Dino,
Thanks for your replies. We have made updates accordingly. Please see the
links to the updated files below.
Additionally, we could use further guidance and/or a response regarding the
following from our initial set of queries (listed below with our comments in
[rfced]) so
Hi Luigi,
> On Feb 4, 2025, at 1:56 AM, Luigi IANNONE wrote:
>
>>> d) We see variations in the following forms. Should these be made
>>> consistent?
>>>
>>> Mapping System vs. mapping system
>>> EID-Record vs. EID record
>>> RLOC-record vs. RLOC record
>>>
>> [LI] Yes thanks. They should be:
Luigi and Dino,
As we have now received approvals from each author (see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9735) and resolved all queries, we will
move this document forward in the publication process at this time.
Thank you for your time and attention during AUTH48.
RFC Editor/mf
> On F
Thanks for the guidance, Rohan and Russ!
We will await Rohan’s updated XML file with further changes.
Thank you.
RFC Editor/mf
> On Feb 4, 2025, at 8:16 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
>
> Rohan and RFC Editor:
>
> 1)
>> I followed the formatting conventions of other similar registrations,
>> incl
Dhruv,
Thank you for your reply. We have updated accordingly. Please pay particular
attention to:
-any updates that may have overlapped with leaf names,
-the way we updated to cite RFC 8792 (does further marking like that in RFC
9646 need to be added?), and
-the way we updated the names of t
Authors,
Just a friendly reminder that this document awaits your attention. Please
review our messages below and let us know if you have any questions while you
complete your AUTH48 review.
We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
Thank you.
RFC Editor/mf
> On Jan
Hi Rohan,
Thanks for pointing that out. We’ve refreshed and reposted as requested.
As you indicated your approval of the document in this form in your last
message, we have updated the AUTH48 status page and will move the document
forward in the publication process at this time.
The files h
Hi Rohan,
Thank you for sending along the file. We have adopted this version with a
minor update: we lowercased Extended Key Purpose in Section 4 to match the
other uses in the document.
As our other queries were removed from the XML, we believe that you have
reviewed them and have no furthe
Hi Gorry,
Requests 1 and 2 below have been added to RFC-to-be 9621 already. I’m not sure
if I understand "The following issues have merged as requests”. Please let us
know if we need to do anything else.
The files have been posted here (please refresh):
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc
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
Michael,
Thank you for sending along the files updated with the capitalization guidance
in response to our cluster-wide query. We have adopted these files and posted
them below.
We had one follow up when reviewing this file:
-with the updates to capitalization, Section 1.4 (Glossary of Key T
Michael,
Thank you for sending along the files updated with the capitalization guidance
in response to our cluster-wide query. We have adopted these files and posted
them below.
Note: We have made a single update to include a comma in the second sentence of
the second paragraph in Section 9.1
Michael,
Thank you for sending along these files and the guidance! We have sent replies
to the individual document threads and copied them below for everyone’s
convenience.
We believe all of our queries have been addressed for the documents in this
cluster at this time.
The AUTH48 status pa
Michael,
Thank you for sending along the files updated with the capitalization guidance
in response to our cluster-wide query. We have adopted these files and posted
them below. Note that we have made no changes to the file submitted.
Please review the files carefully as we do not make change
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the reply/update.
We are very happy to have your expertise in updating the capitalization to
appear as intended (thank you!).
We have you marked as not approved at the AUTH48 status page and will await
further word from you before moving anything forward.
Thanks!
RFC
Michael,
Thank you for sending along the files. We have synced our files with those you
submitted.
Please review the files carefully as we do not make changes after publication.
The files have been posted here (please refresh):
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9622.txt
https://www
Michael,
Thank you for sending along the files. We have synced our files with those you
submitted (including making sure the updates that may have come in while you
were working appear as expected).
Please review the files carefully as we do not make changes after publication.
The files hav
Hi Michael,
Thank you for sending these along. We have updated on our end to post these
versions and ensure that changes that may have been submitted simultaneously
are represented.
We have sent replies to each RFC-to-be thread (9622 and 9623) and copied them
below for everyone’s convenienc
Michael and Mirja,
Thanks for replies and explanations. We have updated the files and rolled
these changes into the current versions of the diffs so as to keep access to
the previous capping updates and all of the capping changes together where
possible (to hopefully keep everyone in the loop)
Hi Michael,
> I will apply all of these changes to the XML files (the latest version you
> sent) and send them back to you.
Excellent. We will await the files updated with all of the changes before
taking any action on our end.
As to the get-together: thanks for the invite! You will have to r
Jari and Karl,
Thank you for your replies. Please see our (several) questions/comments
regarding your responses inline in the message below marked with [rfced] for
places in which further guidance from authors may be necessary or where
confirmation and careful review of our updates is requeste
Greetings,
One final reminder for the year that this document set awaits author action.
Please review mail in this thread and let us know if we can be of assistance
during your AUTH48 review.
Thank you.
RFC Editor/mf
> On Dec 2, 2024, at 12:08 PM, Megan Ferguson wrote:
>
> Authors,
>
> J
Greetings,
One final reminder for the year that this document set awaits author action.
Please review mail in this thread and let us know if we can be of assistance
during your AUTH48 review.
Thank you.
RFC Editor/mf
> On Dec 2, 2024, at 12:08 PM, Megan Ferguson wrote:
>
> Authors,
>
> J
Greetings,
One final reminder for the year that this document set awaits author action.
Please review mail in this thread and let us know if we can be of assistance
during your AUTH48 review.
Thank you.
RFC Editor/mf
> On Dec 2, 2024, at 12:08 PM, Megan Ferguson wrote:
>
> Authors,
>
>
Michael,
Thanks for sending. We have updated and moved RFC-to-be 9622 to AUTH48-DONE to
await the other two documents.
Thank you.
RFC Editor/mf
> On Dec 20, 2024, at 6:20 PM, Michael Welzl wrote:
>
> I see that 9622 lacks my approval: I’m ok eith the latest changes and approve
> publicati
Greetings,
Just a final reminder for the year that this document set awaits author
actions. See the email thread below as well as the AUTH48 status page:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C508
Note that time is running out to move forward with a 2024 publication date due
to holidays etc. Pl
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the quick turnaround!
We have adopted these versions and reposted (see below).
Note that we did not see any changes to RFC-to-be 9622 when creating a diff
with our last version to the one you just sent. If this is in error, please
let us know. We will await your confir
Brian and Gorry,
Thanks for the replies. We have updated our current version of the document
with the short/running title suggested by Brian.
The files have been posted here (please refresh):
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9621.txt
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9621.pdf
https:
Hi Colin,
Thanks for pointing this out. We have folded this change into our current
version of the files (see below).
Perhaps I am missing it, but I *think* we haven’t seen a response to this
question from a previous mail:
2) Regarding the [POSIX] reference, should we update to the 2017 o
Gorry and Colin,
Thanks for your replies.
We have updated the POSIX reference to point to the 2024 version.
Regarding this change:
> OLD:
> It is RECOMMENDED that the Transport Services API offer properties
>that are common to multiple transport protocols.
> NEW:
> It is RECOMMENDED that
Greetings,
While reviewing this cluster of documents*, please review the questions
below regarding consistency across the cluster. These questions are in addition
to the document-specific questions sent for each RFC-to-be.
Your reply will likely impact two or more of the documents in the clust
Mirja and Anna,
Thank you for your replies. We have updated the errant parenthesis Mirja
pointed out (and added this change to our previous version of diffs (see
below)).
We will await any further comments on title changes that may be forthcoming.
A further question: We see several uses of “D
Hi John,
[Note that this email is coming to you from a new email address on our end.]
Thanks for reviewing and sending along these changes. We have updated as
requested*.
*Note that we made one further change to your suggestion for Section 4.1: we
made “goal” singular into “goals” plural.
Hi John,
Thanks for sending this along.
We have adopted this version in our links below. Note that these changes are
not viewable in diffs of the text files from the previous version to this one
as they are “behind the scenes”, so we have created diffs between the xml files
to capture them be
Greetings,
[Please note the new email address on our end.]
A friendly reminder that this document set awaits author attention.
1) We are awaiting responses to document-specific author queries and updates
from your reviews. Please see our document-specific emails for further
information and
Hi Philipp and *Anna,
Philipp - thank you for your reply; we have updated your status to “Approved”
for RFC-to-be 9623.
*Anna - once we hear your approvals for RFCs-to-be 9621 and 9623, this document
set will be ready to move forward in the publication process. We look forward
to hearing from
Hi Karl and John,
Thank you for your replies. We have updated your status to “Approved” at the
AUTH48 status page (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9678). We will
await approval from Jari as well as any necessary re-rendering of the SVG prior
to moving forward in the publication proce
Authors,
[Note that this message has been sent from a new email address on our end.]
Happy new year!
We have updated as requested by Anna (and confirmed by Gorry and Michael,
respectively).
*Anna - As these updates were especially detailed, we ask that you review and
confirm our implementat
Anna,
Thank you for your reply and careful review. We have updated as requested and
marked your status as “Approved” at the AUTH48 status page (see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C508).
As we believe we have received all necessary approvals for this document
cluster, we have changed the
Igor,
Just a friendly reminder that this document awaits your approval. Note that
this document and RFC-to-be 9732 will be ready to move forward in the
publication process once you sign off.
Please review the current version of the document carefully as we do not make
changes once published a
Amanda and Zahed,
Thank you for the updates: everything looks as expected.
We have updated the AUTH48 status page to mark IANA’s completion and record
Zahed’s approval and moved this document to AUTH48-DONE to await the AUTH48
completions of RFCs-to-be 9626 and 9627.
Please see the AUTH48 sta
Stefan and Magnus,
Thank you for sending along your approvals.
We have updated the AUTH48 status page accordingly (see below).
Once RFC-to-be 9626 completes AUTH48 (currently awaiting word from IANA on the
expert’s response), this document set will be ready to move forward in the
publication
Greetings,
Just a friendly weekly reminder that this document awaits your attention.
Please see the document-specific questions
and AUTH48 announcement in this thread and let us know if we can be of
assistance as you begin the AUTH48 review process.
Please note that the AUTH48 status page of
Hi Aaron,
Thank you for your reply and the updated XML file.
We have adopted your version (see below) and added the keywords suggested to
our database.
Please review the files carefully as we do not make changes after publication.
The files have been posted here (please refresh):
https:/
Hi Paul,
Thanks for getting back to us on this issue.
We’ve noted your comments at the AUTH48 status page
(http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9770) and look forward to discussing with
the authors.
RFC Editor/mf
> On Apr 24, 2025, at 12:17 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 22,
Hi Marco and *Paul,
[*Paul - please review the updates the authors made in response to our question
21 (regarding the BCP 14 language) and confirm no further updates are
necessary.]
Thank you for your reply and guidance. We have updated accordingly.
Just a follow up to our question:
>>> 25)
Dhruv,
Thanks for pointing that out! We have added this change to the current version
and reposted (see below).
We have recorded your approval at the AUTH48 status page (see below) and will
await approvals from your coauthors prior to moving forward in the publication
process.
The files ha
Jari,
Thank you for your reply. As we now have all approvals necessary, we will move
this document forward in the publication process at this time.
Thanks to all for your time and attention during AUTH48!
RFC Editor/mf
> On Feb 16, 2025, at 7:24 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for
Bin,
Thank you for your reply. We have updated the AUTH48 status page to reflect
your
approval.
Please note that we will assume your assent to any further changes submitted
by your coauthors unless we hear otherwise at that time.
Once we receive approvals from Daniele and Igor, this document
Hi Martin,
Thanks for sending this change along. We have rolled it into the current
versions (see links below). We have also updated the AUTH48 status page to
include your approval. Once we hear approval from Gorry, this document will be
ready to move forward in the publication process.
The
Thanks for keeping us in the loop, Sabrina!
RFC Editor/mf
> On Mar 7, 2025, at 12:24 PM, Sabrina Tanamal via RT
> wrote:
>
> Hi Megan, all,
>
> I received the following note from the RTP Compact Header Extensions expert:
>
> I am looking into this. But currently I am running a period of fe
Daniele,
Thanks for sending along your approval.
Once we hear back from Igor, this document will be ready to move forward in the
publication process (see http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9731).
RFC Editor/mf
> On Mar 10, 2025, at 8:55 AM, Daniele Ceccarelli
> wrote:
>
> Hi Megan,
>
> I
Hi Justin,
We have updated your postal address in both RFCs-to-be 9627 and 9628 (please
refresh to view).
We don’t believe any further changes were necessary per your message; please
let us know if this was in error. We have marked you as “Approved” for
RFC-to-be 9627. We do not believe we’v
IANA,
Please update https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/video/VP9 to match
Section 7 of this document.
We have included the text and diff files below for your convenience:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9628.txt
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9628-diff.html
Please l
Justin (and *AD),
Thank you for your reply. We have updated your status to “Approved” at the
AUTH48 status page (see below).
We believe we are awaiting word from the *AD regarding the following:
> We have updated to use Mo’s proposed text as related to question 10 (the text
> sent to the WG).
Hi Gorry,
Thanks for sending this along. We have added this change to our versions of
the files
(see below).
Please review our update (as your description of the update was to change one
word but
the “New” text actually changed more than one word) and let us know if any
further updates
are
Hi Gorry (and Martin) and Zahed,
Thanks for your careful review, guidance, and replies thus far.
We have updated according to your replies. Please review the files carefully
as we have made slight tweaks where necessary and we do not make changes after
publication.
The files have been pos
Hi all,
Just checking in to see if you’ve had a chance to review the files posted (see
email below)?
Please let us know if any further changes are necessary or if you’d like to
approve the current version.
Once we have approvals from each author listed at the AUTH48 status page for
this doc
Authors (and *AD),
Just checking in to see if you’ve had a chance to review the files posted
and/or *AD queries in the emails below?
Please let us know if any further changes are necessary or if you’d like to
approve the current version.
We are awaiting approvals from authors and *AD guidanc
Authors,
Thank you for your replies to our queries!
We have updated our files accordingly with your responses to both the
document-specific and cluster-wide questions we have received to date. Please
review these updates carefully as we do not make changes once the document is
published as a
Greetings,
A repeat of the request below for contact information for Justin and Danny (and
a note for AD awareness that we have not been able to reach them).
Thank you.
RFC Editor/mf
> On Feb 14, 2025, at 9:49 AM, Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) wrote:
>
> 3) Further note:
> We have received bounce-mes
Hi Mo and Jonathan,
Thank you for your replies regarding these cluster-wide questions. We had some
follow up questions/comments for you to consider (numbering based on our
original numbering for these questions). We will await replies to the
following prior to moving this cluster forward in t
Authors and *Zahed (see question 10),
Thank you for your replies.
We have listed the document-specific queries that still require author input
below. Note that you are welcome to make updates directly to the edited XML
file linked in this email if this would be more convenient than explaining
Apologies for the noise, resending with our current email (please reply to this
address)
> On Feb 19, 2025, at 12:48 PM, Megan Ferguson wrote:
>
> Authors and *Zahed (see question 10),
>
> Thank you for your replies.
>
> We have listed the document-specific queries that still require author i
Greetings,
This document has been updated with the responses to our cluster-wide queries
we have received to date. Please review these updates carefully as we do not
make changes once the document is published as an RFC.
Note that we will await the following prior to moving forward in the
pub
Apologies for the noise, resending with our current email (please reply to this
address)
> On Feb 19, 2025, at 12:48 PM, Megan Ferguson wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> This document has been updated with the responses to our cluster-wide queries
> we have received to date. Please review these upda
Danny,
Thank you for sending along your updated contact information. We have rolled
this change into the previous version of the files.
As you indicated your approval, we have also updated the AUTH48 status page to
capture that information.
Please review the files carefully as we do not make
Danny,
Thank you for sending along your updated contact information. We have rolled
this change into the previous version of the files.
As you indicated your approval, we have also updated the AUTH48 status page to
capture that information.
Please review the files carefully as we do not make
Hi Jonathan, Justin, and *AD,
Thanks for your reply.
We have updated to use Mo’s proposed text as related to question 10 (the text
sent to the WG). We will await *AD review/confirmation that we are okay to go
forward with this text:
Current:
U: Switching up point. When this bit is set
Just an update to add the following change to the AD review list:
> In the definition of Picture ID, in section 4.2, in the phrase "if the field
> transitions from 15 bits to 7 bits, it is truncated (i.e., the value after
> 0x1bbe is 0xbf)” the value “0xbf” should be replaced by “0x3f”. (0xbf i
Jonathan,
Thank you for spotting that! We have updated the files to include this change.
Please review the files carefully as we do not make changes after publication.
The files have been posted here (please refresh):
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9627.txt
https://www.rfc-editor.org
Justin,
Note that the following question/comments for you remain open:
1) Justin - we have updated your affiliation. Please review the physical
address in these docs and let us know what (if any) updates are necessary.
2) Please provide further information on VP8 in this list as we don’t see a
Hi Jonathan,
Thanks for your reply and guidance.
We have rolled these changes into the previous version. Please review and let
us know if any further updates are necessary.
We now consider all document-specific and cluster-wide questions resolved.
The files have been posted here (please ref
Young,
Thank you for your reply. We have updated the AUTH48 status page to reflect
your
approval.
Please note that we will assume your assent to any further changes submitted
by your coauthors unless we hear otherwise at that time.
The AUTH48 status page is viewable at:
http://www.rfc-edito
Authors and *AD,
Thank you for your replies. We have updated according to the responses we have
received thus far regarding the document-specific and cluster-wide questions.
1) We believe the only outstanding issue remaining from all of these questions
is *AD approval of the following change t
All,
Thank you for your replies. We have updated accordingly with the responses we
have received thus far to our document-specific and cluster-wide queries.
To follow up on a few of these items:
1) Justin - we have updated your affiliation. Please review the physical
address in these docs an
All,
Thank you for your replies. As these issues have either closed out or gone on
to become document specific, we have shifted further communication to each
individual document’s thread.
Please see the AUTH48 status page for all documents here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C324
Thank
All,
Thank you for your replies. We have updated according to the responses we have
received thus far to the document—specific and cluster-wide queries.
We had the following questions/comments to (hopefully) finish the list of
queries out:
1) Related to the cluster-wide bit name question: we
Murray,
Thank you for the quick reply and your help getting this AUTH48 restarted!
We’ve recorded your approval here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9626
RFC Editor/mf
> On Feb 20, 2025, at 1:56 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
> I've reviewed the comprehensive diff link and in part
Hi Murray,
We have now received all approvals from the authors. We will send separate
mail to IANA requesting updates to match the edits made to the document in
AUTH48. Once we hear that they have completed their changes, this document
will be ready to move to AUTH48-DONE.
Please see the AUT
IANA,
Regarding this document’s entry at
https://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters/rtp-parameters.xhtml, please
update as follows to match the document:
Old:
Extension URI: urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:framemarkinginfo
New:
Extension URI: urn:ietf:params:rtp-hdrext:framemarking
Note also:
Hi Aaron,
Just a friendly reminder that the updates to this document await your review.
Please contact us at your earliest convenience with any further changes you may
have or your approval of the document in its current form.
Thank you.
RFC Editor/mf
> On Apr 29, 2025, at 1:53 PM, Megan Fe
Hi Aaron,
Thank you for sending along these changes in the XML file. We have adopted the
changes and reposted.
Please review the files carefully as we do not make changes after publication.
The files have been posted here (please refresh):
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9773.txt
Hi Aaron,
Just a friendly reminder that we await your approval of the document in its
current form or any further updates you have.
Please see our mail below for further information and let us know if you have
any questions.
Thank you.
RFC Editor/mf
> On May 13, 2025, at 9:31 PM, Megan Ferg
Hi Aaron,
Just a friendly reminder that this document awaits author approval prior to
moving forward to publication. Please see our mail below and let us know if
you have any questions.
Thanks!
RFC Editor/mf
> On May 13, 2025, at 9:31 PM, Megan Ferguson
> wrote:
>
> Hi Aaron,
>
> Thank
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
