[auth48] Re: [Ext] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9718 for your review

Hi Paul, Thank you for the quick reply! You mention that you provided "notes on the visible changes” in addition to answers to our questions, but we only see your answers to our questions. Let us know if we are missing anything. We updated the document (see list of files below) and have a few

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9724 for your review

Hi Éric and authors, Regarding question #21, Éric noted that he will support either option we suggested. Both Carlos and Juan Carlos have expressed a preference for using https://wiki.ietf.org/: Carlos: > From my side, it would be fine to host this on wiki.ietf.org, as > there IETF keeps the co

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9724 for your review

Hi Juan Carlos, Thank you for your response! We have updated the document accordingly (see list of files below) and have some followup questions: A) >> > 6) >> > > [Carlos] I prefer the original text, maybe replacing "station" with > "station (or STA)". The reason is that stations are not the

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9725 for your review

Hi Sergio, Thank you for addressing these questions. We updated the files per your response. As of now, the open questions are #D, E, F, and G from our email sent 2025-02-07 (all relating to IANA updates). Please let us know if you have any questions as you review those. — FILES (please refr

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9724 for your review

Hi Carlos, Thanks for the reply; we updated the document accordingly. The following questions are still open: #7, #9, #10, #12b, #27, and #28 - for Juan Carlos and Amelia #21 - for the AD — FILES (please refresh) — Updated XML file: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9724.xml Updated

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9725 for your review

Hi Nils, Thanks for the input. We’ll update this in the files when we receive answers to the other questions. And you’re right - we did mix up the numbers as well! Best regards, RFC Editor/rv > On Jan 31, 2025, at 12:58 PM, Nils Ohlmeier wrote: > > Hello, > > Only answering number 9 here,

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9695 for your review

Adding the auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > On Jan 26, 2025, at 4:15 PM, Sandy Ginoza > wrote: > > Hi Chris, > > Thanks for your review and for confirming the RFC is ready for publication. > We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 page >

[auth48] [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9695 for your review

Hi Yeshwant, Chris, and Murray* I’ll be helping with this document this week as Sandy is on PTO. Yeshwant - Thanks for checking in about the status of the document. You are correct that we have approvals from both you and Chris (I just forwarded the approval from Chris to the AUTH48 archive).

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9725 for your review

Sean, Thank you for letting us know about Alex. Thank you also for including Sergio’s alternate email address. Best regards, RFC Editor/rv > On Jan 31, 2025, at 1:37 PM, Sean Turner wrote: > > Hi! Be aware that Alex is deceased. Please do not wait on responses from him. > > I have also inc

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9699 for your review

Hi authors, This is a friendly reminder that we await answers to the questions below and your review of the document before continuing with the publication process. The AUTH48 status page is available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9699 We look forward to hearing from you. Thank y

[auth48] [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9699 for your review

Hi Éric* and Renan, Thank you for your replies. Renan, we marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9699). We will assume your assent to any further changes submitted by your coauthor unless we hear objection at that time. We ha

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9699 for your review

Hi Renan and Akbar, Thank you for your quick replies! Renan, I updated the sentence regarding Table 2; you’ll see that reflected in the files below. Akbar, I marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9699). The only open issue

[auth48] Re: [Ext] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9718 for your review

Hi Guillaume, Thank you for your review. We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9718). [Note that my email address has changed from to .] Best regards, RFC Editor/rv > On Jan 8, 2025, at 4:43 PM, Guillaume Bailey >

[auth48] Re: [Ext] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9718 for your review

Hi Paul, We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9718). [Note that my email address has changed from to .] Thank you, RFC Editor/rv > On Jan 8, 2025, at 7:59 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > > Thanks for making all those c

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9724 for your review

Hi Carlos, Thank you for responding to our questions. We have updated the document accordingly (see list of files below) and have a few followup questions. We will wait for Juan Carlos and Amelia to respond to questions #7, #9, #10, #12b, #27, and #28. We will also wait for the AD to address qu

[auth48] Re: [Ext] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9718 for your review

Hi Joe and other authors, Joe - We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9718). All - We now have all needed approvals. We will begin to prepare this document for publication at this time. Thank you for your attention and

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9699 for your review

Hi Leslie, Renan, and Akbar, Leslie, thank you for responding to clarify the change to the title! We updated the title (but not the abstract) and will move forward. Renan and Akbar, all our questions have been addressed, and we have received all necessary approvals. We now consider AUTH48 compl

[auth48] Re: [Ext] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9718 for your review

HI Jakob, Thank you for reviewing the document. We have marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9718). Once we receive approval from Joe, we can move this document forward. Best regards, RFC Editor/rv > On Jan 8, 2025, at 10

[auth48] Re: [Ext] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9718 for your review

Hi Paul, We updated the document per your latest email. All of our questions have now been addressed. Note that we used “dns-rr” for the two sourcecode blocks in Section 2.3 per feedback from RPAT and internal discussion. Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do n

[auth48] Re: [Ext] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9720 for your review

Hi Paul and Heather, We noted your approvals on the AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9720. We will now begin to prepare the document for publication. Thank you for your attention and guidance during the AUTH48 process! Best regards, RFC Editor/rv > On Jan 15, 2025,

[auth48] Re: [Ext] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9720 for your review

Hi Paul and Heather, Thank you for your replies! We have updated the document accordingly. Please contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form. We will await approval from each author prior to moving forward in the publication process. Updated

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9739 for your review

Hi Mike and Hooman, Thanks for the replies. I marked your approvals on the AUTH48 status page for this document. See https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9739. Best regards, RFC Editor/rv > On Feb 12, 2025, at 5:44 PM, Hooman Bidgoli (Nokia) > wrote: > > Hi Rebecca > > My appreciate your

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9739 for your review

Hi Hooman, Stig, and Mankamana, Thank you for your replies; we have updated the document accordingly (see files below). We have two followup questions: A) Please confirm “network” is okay in these sentences. We ask because we see "BIER domain" (rather than “BIER network”) elsewhere in the docum

[auth48] [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9749 for your review

Hi Daniel and Murray* Daniel - Thanks for the reply; we updated the document accordingly. All of our questions have now been addressed. Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any further updates

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9725 for your review

Sounds great, Sergio. Thank you! Sincerely, RFC Editor/rv > On Mar 17, 2025, at 10:05 AM, Sergio Garcia Murillo > wrote: > > I will do a final review tomorrow morning my time and hopefully give my > approval asap > > El lun, 17 mar 2025, 18:04, Rebecca VanRheenen > escribió: > Hi Murray,

[auth48] [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9754 for your review

Hi Tom and Gorry*, *Gorry - As AD, please review and approve the following changes. These are best viewed in this diff file: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9754-auth48diff.html. 1) Added paragraph in Section 5; it’s the fourth paragraph (author comment: "We missed the following paragrap

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9725 for your review

Hi Murray, We marked your AD approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9725). We now need the following: 1) your approval for Alexandre and 2) Sergio’s approval. It seems that there may be a chance to wrap up approvals before the changeover

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9725 for your review

Hi Murray and Sergio, We have marked your approvals on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9725). In a separate email, we will request that IANA update the registries to match the edited document. Once that is done, we will prepare this document fo

[auth48] [IANA] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9725 for your review

Hi IANA, Please update the registries as described below to match the edited document. If needed, the files are available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9725.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9725.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9725.html https://www.rfc-editor.or

[auth48] Re: [IANA #1415239] [IANA] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9725 for your review

Hi David, Thank you for the updates! Best regards, RFC Editor/rv > On Mar 18, 2025, at 2:38 PM, David Dong via RT wrote: > > Hi Rebecca, > > These changes are complete: > > In the Link Relation Types registry: > > ice-server Conveys the STUN and TURN servers that can be used by an ICE age

[auth48] Re: [IANA #1415239] [IANA] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9725 for your review

All, IANA has updated the registries, so we will now begin to prepare this document for publication. Thank you for your attention and guidance during the AUTH48 process! AUTH48 status page for this document: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9725 Best regards, RFC Editor/rv > On Mar 19,

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9754 for your review

Hi Gorry, Tom, and Trond, Thank you for the quick replies! We have marked your approvals on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9754). Note that we updated the list in the Definitions section to use , and we also moved one list item (stated) so tha

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9766 for your review

Hi Tom, Thanks for the quick reply! We updated the document (see list of files below). We have a few followup questions/comments: a) We updated the abbreviated title as shown below to align with the updated document title. Let us know any concerns. Note that the abbreviated title only appears

[auth48] [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9725 for your review

Hi Sergio and Murray*, Sergio - Thanks for sending these changes along. We’ve incorporated them in the current versions of the files (see list below). Please let us know if any further updates are needed or if you approve the document in its current form. *Murray - Sergio has addressed all open

[auth48] [Document Shepherd] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9771 for your review

Hi Andrey, Thank you for addressing all of our questions and updating the xml file! Note that we also added expansions for RAE, CCA, and CPA in the xml file. Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Let us know

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9766 for your review

Hi Tom, Thank you for your reply. We updated the document; all of our questions have now been addressed. Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9766 for your review

Hi Tom, We have marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9766). Once Trond approves the document, we can move forward in the publication process. Best regards, RFC Editor/rv > On Apr 10, 2025, at 11:51 PM, Thomas Haynes wrot

[auth48] Re: [Document Shepherd] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9771 for your review

Hi Alexey, We have marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9771). Once we receive approval from Andrey, we will move this document forward in the publication process. Thank you, RFC Editor/rv > On May 1, 2025, at 7:35 AM, Ale

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9771 for your review

Hi Andrey, This is a friendly reminder that this document awaits your attention. Please review the document-specific questions and AUTH48 announcement below. Let us know if we can be of assistance as you begin the AUTH48 review process. AUTH48 status page of this document: https://www.rfc-ed

[auth48] Re: [Document Shepherd] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9771 for your review

Hi Andrey, We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9771). We have received all needed approvals and now consider AUTH48 complete. We will move the document forward in the publication process at this time. Thank you for y

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9766 for your review

Hi Trond, This is a friendly reminder that we have yet to hear back from you regarding this document’s readiness for publication. Please review the edited document and let us know if you approve. For your convenience, we have listed the files below. Note that Tom addressed all of our question

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9766 for your review

Hi Trond, No worries! I hope you enjoyed your travels. We marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9766). We now have all needed approvals and will begin to prepare this document for publication. Thank you, RFC Editor/rv > O

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9741 for your review

Hi Carsten, Thanks for spotting that. It looks like the issue is still open: https://github.com/ietf-tools/xml2rfc/issues/1120 For this document, what do you think about using the direct link rather than the archive link? We tested it out, and the spurious blank space doesn’t appear with the

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9724 for your review

Hi Éric, > I had in mind that I had already replied to Q21 telling the two authors to > use whatever means they prefer but with a slight preference to wiki.ietf.org, > which also has authors’ preference. Yes, you did reply to question #21. We are now waiting for notification that the informati

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9741 for your review

Hi Carsten, We updated the link in the [C] reference entry and marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9741). Thank you for your attention and guidance during the AUTH48 process. We will begin to prepare this document for publicat

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9749 for your review

Hi Daniel, Thank you for responding to our questions. We updated the document accordingly (see files below). We have a followup question. We replaced the [X9.62] reference with [SEC1] and also updated "[X9.62] Annex A” to "Section 2.3.3 of [SEC1]” as you suggest. Are any updates needed for “X

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9725 for your review

Hi Sergio, Thank you for the reply. We updated the document and posted updated files. We also have a few more questions; thank you for your patience as we work through these! a) We updated the sentences in Section 6.5 as you suggest to make them generic for both registries. However, are chang

[auth48] [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9724 for your review

Hi Éric*, Carlos, and other authors, *Éric - As AD, please review and approve the changes in the second paragraph of Section 6.5. The changes are best viewed in this diff file: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9724-auth48diff.html. Carlos and other authors - > My apologies for the belate

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9724 for your review

Hi Carlos, I marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9724). Once we receive approval from Juan Carlos and Amelia, we can move this document forward in the publication process. Also, I made a few more minor edits on the wiki to m

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9739 for your review

Hi Jeffrey, Thanks for the super quick reply! I marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9739). Once we receive approval from Gunter, we can move this document forward. Thank you, RFC Editor/rv > On Feb 27, 2025, at 2:23 PM, J

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9739 for your review

Hello authors and Gunter*, Authors - We updated the files per the recent discussion and also updated Jeffrey’s email address. Please review and let us know any concerns. We still need Jeffrey’s approval; we have received approval from all other authors. Jeffrey, let us know if you approve the

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9741 for your review

Hi Carsten, Thank you for the reply! We have updated the document accordingly (see list of files below). All of our questions have been addressed. For the paragraph about key words, we follow the exact wording in RFC 8174. The author of RFC 8174 was clear about his choice to refer to [RFC2119]

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9741 for your review

Hi Carsten, Thank you for your reply. We have updated the document accordingly (see list of files below). We also have a few followup questions/comments: A) >> 1) > > Such an addition seems necessary, but Section 8 of RFC 8949 does not mention > RFC 9285 (obviously). > > Maybe: > The specif

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9749 for your review

Hi Daniel, We marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9749). We have received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete. We will move this document forward in the publication process at this time. Thank you for your

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9725 for your review

Hi Sergio, Yes, we are almost there! We have updated the document per your reply to our followup questions. All of our questions have now been addressed. Please contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form. Review the document carefully to ens

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9749 for your review

Hi Murray, Thanks for the reply. We marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9749). Once we receive Daniel’s approval, we can move this document forward in the publication process. Best regards, RFC Editor/rv > On Mar 12, 2025

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9741 for your review

Hi Carsten, The page should be correct now: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9741. You may need to refresh. Thank you, RFC Editor/rv > On Mar 3, 2025, at 9:18 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > > Hi Rebecca, > >> On 3. Mar 2025, at 18:05, Rebecca VanRheenen >> wrote: >> >> We […] marked y

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9739 for your review

Hi Gunter and authors, We have now received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9739 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 rega

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9724 for your review

Hello authors, Amelia and Juan Carlos - I marked your approvals on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9724). All - We have now received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete. Thank you all for your attention and guidance during the

[auth48] [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9725 for your review

Hi Murray, As AD, please review and approve the following changes. These changes are best viewed in the following diff files: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9725-alt-diff.html and https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9725-auth48diff.html. Note that we sent three followup questions to t

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9739 for your review

Hi Stig and Mankamana, We have marked your approvals on the AUTH48 status page for this document. See https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9739. Best regards, RFC Editor/rv > On Feb 12, 2025, at 4:17 PM, Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) > wrote: > > I approve the change . Looks good to me . >

[auth48] [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9739 for your review

Hi Hooman, other authors, and AD*, Hooman - Thanks for the quick reply. All of our questions have been addressed. All authors - Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any further updates or wit

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9739 for your review

Hi Jeffrey, We are glad that Gunter forwarded the email to you. You can view the other messages for this document in the AUTH48 archive: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/?q=9739. Should your email address in this document be updated from to ? We just looked at a few rece

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9724 for your review

Hi authors, We are checking in regarding this document. Followup questions A-D from the email dated 2025-02-7 (see below) are still open. In addition, we believe that you will be using wiki.ietf.org (rather than GitHub) to host the text from Section 7 of the document (per question 21). Once

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9739 for your review

Hi Gunter and authors, Gunter - Thanks for the response. We have marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9739). All - Once Zhaohui Zhang approves the document, we can move forward in the publication process. Best regards, RFC E

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

Hi Tony, Loa, and other authors, Thank you for responding to our questions. We have updated the document accordingly (see files listed below) and have a few followup questions/comments. 1) Apologies for not being clear in our question about the abbreviation and expansion in the document title.

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9780 for your review

Hi Jim, Thank you for the input. Thank you, RFC Editor/rv > On May 16, 2025, at 4:51 AM, James Guichard > wrote: > > Hi Rebecca, > As the responsible AD, I agree with the authors that a change in the > inclusive language is not necessary in this case. > Jim > From: Rebecca VanRheenen >

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9780 for your review

Hi Greg and Donald, Thank you for the replies! We have updated the document per Greg’s reply. Donald, thank you for confirming your agreement with Greg's responses. We believe all questions have been addressed except for the followup question below. The other followup comments sent 2025-05-15 w

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9780 for your review

Hello authors, This is a friendly reminder that we await answers to the questions below and your review of the document before continuing with the publication process. Please let us know if we can be of assistance as you complete your review. We look forward to hearing from you. Thank you, R

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

Hi Jim, Thanks for confirming! Best regards, RFC Editor/rv > On May 14, 2025, at 4:02 AM, James Guichard > wrote: > > > > 1) > > Jim> Confirmed. -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org

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

Hi Greg, The AUTH48 announcement and questions were sent yesterday. I’ve pasted the questions below. You can also see the messages in the AUTH48 mail archive: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/?q=9791. Thank you for checking in! Best regards, RFC Editor/rv 1) 2) 3

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

Hi Greg and other authors, Greg - Thank you for addressing all of our questions! We have updated the document accordingly. All - Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any further updates or wi

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9780 for your review

Hi Donald, Thank you for addressing our questions. We have updated the document accordingly (see list of files below). We also have a few followup questions/comments. 1) >>> d) Would either of the following read more clearly? Or is the current okay? >>> >>> Current: >>> the Dummy IPv6 Prefix

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

Hi Stewart and other authors, Stewart - We marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9789. All - We have now received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete. Thank you for your attention and guidance during the AUTH48 pr

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

Hello authors, Thank you for the input on the question about the document title. We have updated the title accordingly. All questions have now been addressed. Please contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form. We will await approvals from each

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9806 for your review

Hi Dan, Thanks for the quick reply! We’ve marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9806). We will now await Andy’s response to question #1. Thank you, RFC Editor/rv > On Jun 19, 2025, at 10:53 PM, Dan Mongrain > wrote: > > I fu

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9806 for your review

Hi Dan, You noted: > I have fully reviewed the RFC editors' questions and resulting output and > they are more than satisfactory. Based on this, we believe that no changes are needed per questions #2-5 (question #1 was for the AD). Please let us know if you approve the document in its current

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

Hi Adrian, authors, and Jim*, Adrian - Thank you for providing the updated text. We have updated the files accordingly (see list of files below) Authors - Please let us know if you approve of the document in its current form or if any further updates are needed. *Jim - As AD, please review the

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9806 for your review

Hi Andy and Dan, Andy - Thank you for handling the erratum! Dan - All of our questions have now been addressed (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9806). In a separate email, we will ask IANA to update the media type registration template at

[auth48] [IANA] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9806 for your review

Hi IANA, We made some updates to the media type registration template in Section 4.1 of this document. Please update the following template to match the edited document: https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/rs-metadata+xml Here are the the edited output files: https://www

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

Hello all, Thank you for the replies. We added the sentence that Loa suggested to the Acknowledgments section with a small edit. We also incorporated the changes sent by Jie. These changes are best viewed in the alt-diff or lastdiff files listed below. Loa and Stewart, we have marked your appr

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9790

Hi Adrian, Jie, and other authors, Jie, we have marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9790). Adrian, thank you for forwarding Jie's approval to us! We are now waiting for Kireeti’s review and approval. Best regards, RFC Edito

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

Hi Kiran, This is a friendly reminder that we have yet to hear back from you regarding this document’s readiness for publication. Please let us know if you approval the document in its current form or if further changes are needed. Updated XML file: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9791.x

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9805 for your review

Hi Ron, Thanks for the quick reply! We have marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9805). Thank you for your attention and guidance during the AUTH48 process. We will begin to prepare this document for the publication at this time.

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9805 for your review

Hi Ron, Thank you for the reply! We have updated to use "IPv6 Router Alert option”. All of our questions have now been addressed. Please let us know if you approve of the document in its current form. After we receive your approval, we will begin to prepare the document for publication. — FIL

[auth48] [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9805 for your review

Hi Ron and Erik*, *Erik, as AD, please review and approve the change from “may” to “MAY” in the third sentence of Section 4 (to align with first sentence). The change is best viewed in this diff file: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9805-auth48diff.html. Ron, thank you for responding to

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

Hi Kiran and other authors, Kiran - We have marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document; see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9791. All - We have now received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete. Thank you for your attention and guidance during the AUTH

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9805 for your review

Hi Erik, We have marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document; see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9805. Thank you, RFC Editor/rv > On Jun 15, 2025, at 1:39 PM, Erik Kline wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 6:29 PM Rebecca VanRheenen > wrote: > Hi Ron and Er

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

Hi Tarek, Thank you for your reply! We have marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9791. Once Kiran approves, we will begin to prepare the document for publication. Best regards, RFC Editor/rv > On Jun 8, 2025, at 10:15 AM, Tarek

[auth48] Re: [IANA #1421755] [IANA] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9806 for your review

Hi David, Thank you for making these changes! Sincerely, RFC Editor/rv > On Jun 20, 2025, at 7:07 PM, David Dong via RT wrote: > > Hi Rebecca, > > This is complete; thank you: > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/rs-metadata+xml > > Best regards, > > David Dong > I

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

Hi Kireeti and Loa, Kireeti, thank you for your review and suggestions! We have updated the document accordingly, except for the following: Current: Post-stack First Nibble (PFN) Suggested: Post-Stack First Nibble (PFN) As Loa notes, the use of lowercase aligns the expansion with the chose

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9806 for your review

Hi Dan, IANA has updated the media type template as requested. We now consider AUTH48 complete; see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9806. We will begin to prepare this document for publication at this time. Sincerely, RFC Editor/rv > On Jun 23, 2025, at 9:08 AM, Rebecca VanRheenen > w

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

Hi Greg, We have marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9791. Thank you! RFC Editor/rv > On Jun 2, 2025, at 3:23 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote: > > Hi Rebecca, > thank you for your help in improving this document. I have reviewed all t

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

Hi Haoyu, Thank you for your reply. We have marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9791. Once Tarek and Kiran approve, we will begin to prepare the document for publication. Best regards, RFC Editor/rv > On Jun 4, 2025, at 10:5

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

Hi all, We’d like to check in on this document. We know there has been discussion regarding the definitions in Section 1.2, but we are not sure if a conclusion has been reached. Apologies if we missed anything! Thank you, RFC Editor/rv > On May 29, 2025, at 12:16 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: >

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

Hi Loa, Thank you for the update! Best regards, RFC Editor/rv > On Jun 11, 2025, at 1:02 AM, Loa Andersson wrote: > > Rebecca, > > There is a discussion at least among some of the authors and the document > shepherd about what we need to say about "MLPL Payload" and the capabilities > of

[auth48] [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9809 for your review

Hi Hendrik and AD*, Hendrik - Thank you for your reply! We have updated the document accordingly. Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the document

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9809 for your review

Hi Deb, Thanks for the quick reply! We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9809). Best regards, RFC Editor/rv > On Jun 27, 2025, at 2:37 PM, Deb Cooley wrote: > > That change is fine by me, if it is fine with the author

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

Authors, All of the documents in cluster 520 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C520) have now completed AUTH48. We will begin to do our final checks and move this document forward in the publication process at this time. Thank you, RFC Editor/rv > On Jun 2, 2025, at 10:28 A

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9819 for your review

Hi Ketan and Jorge, Thank you for addressing our questions. We’ve updated the document accordingly. In regard to question #4, we made the changes suggested by Jorge. Note that we expanded “A-D” in the first instance. We also updated the second sentence in Section 3.1 from "A-D per ES routes” to

  1   2   >