Hi Job, We have updated the document as described below. In addition, we updated the XML to include a closing quote after 1772 as follows:
<delta serial="1772 uri="https://rrdp.example.net/1772/delta.xml” The current files are available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9697.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9697.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9697.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9697.html AUTH48 diff (currently shows the most recent updates only): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9697-auth48diff.html Comprehensive diffs: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9697-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9697-rfcdiff.html Please review and let us know if any additional updates are needed or if you approve the RFC for publication. Thank you, RFC Editor/sg > On Nov 27, 2024, at 3:36 AM, Job Snijders <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Dear RFC Editor, > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 07:00:09PM -0800, [email protected] wrote: >> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) >> the following questions, which are also in the XML file. >> >> 1) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble parsing this text. We see this text >> appears in RFC 7115: >> >> Like the DNS, the global RPKI presents only a loosely consistent >> view, depending on timing, updating, fetching, etc. >> >> When combined in the new sentence, it is unclear how "depending on >> timing..." relates to the rest of the sentence. Perhaps the sentence should >> be broken into two? Please clarify. >> >> Original: >> While the global RPKI is understood to present a loosely consistent >> view, depending on timing, updating, fetching (see Section 6 of >> [RFC7115]), different caches having different data for the same RRDP >> session at the same serial violates the principle of least >> astonishment. >> --> > > PERHAPS: > Even though the global RPKI is understood to present a loosely > consistent view which depends on the cache's timing of updates (see > Section 6 of [RFC7115]), different caches having different data for > the same RRDP session at the same serial violates the principle of > least astonishment. > >> 2) <!-- [rfced] May the word 'protocol' be removed from the following >> (as shown below) because it's redundant with the expansion of RRDP? >> >> Original: >> ... is an absolute requirement for the RRDP protocol to work well. >> >> Perhaps: >> ... is an absolute requirement for RRDP to work well. >> --> > > Yes, "... is an absolute requirement for RRDP to work well." is OK. > >> 3) <!-- [rfced] We have added a closing quote to the last line of figure 1 >> so it's well formed. Please review and let us know if corrections are >> needed. >> >> Original: >> <delta serial="1772" >> hash="d4087585323fd6b7fd899ebf662ef213c469d39f53839fa6241847f4f6ceb939" >> uri="https://rrdp.example.net/1772/delta.xml /> >> >> Current: >> <delta serial="1772" >> hash="d4087585323fd6b7fd899ebf662ef213c469d39f53839fa6241847f4f6ceb939" >> uri="https://rrdp.example.net/1772/delta.xml"; /> > > Ah, good catch, thank you! > >> We updated figure 3 similarly. Please review. >> >> Original: >> <delta serial="1775" >> >> >> hash="d199376e98a9095dbcf14ccd49208b4223a28a1327669f89566475d94b2b08cc" >> >> uri="https://rrdp.example.net/1775/delta.xml /> >> >> Current: >> <delta serial="1775" >> hash="d199376e98a9095dbcf14ccd49208b4223a28a1327669f89566475d94b2b08cc" >> uri="https://rrdp.example.net/1775/delta.xml"; /> >> --> > > Good catch, thank you! > >> 4) <!-- [rfced] As this text would be added to RFC 8182, it would be odd to >> refer to itself. We updated the text to indicate "Section 3.4.3", where >> 3.4.3 links to Section 3.4.3 in RFC 8182. Please review and let us know if >> you have any concerns. (Note that the .txt will show as below, without a >> link.) >> >> Original: >> | ... The Relying Party >> | SHOULD then download and process the Snapshot File specified in >> | the downloaded Update Notification File as described in >> | Section 3.4.3 of [RFC8182] >> >> Current: >> | ... The Relying Party SHOULD >> | then download and process the Snapshot File specified in the >> | downloaded Update Notification File as described in Section 3.4.3. >> --> > > Yup, perfect. > >> 5) <!-- [rfced] Please review the sourcecode in Figures 1 and 3 as there are >> a >> few lines that exceed the 69-character limit and let us know how we may >> add line breaks. > > Figure 1 can be as follows: > > <sourcecode type="xml"> > <![CDATA[ > <notification xmlns="http://www.ripe.net/rpki/rrdp"; version="1" > session_id="fe528335-db5f-48b2-be7e-bf0992d0b5ec" serial="1774"> > <snapshot uri="https://rrdp.example.net/1774/snapshot.xml"; > hash= > "4b5f27b099737b8bf288a33796bfe825fb2014a69fd6aa99080380299952f2e2" > /> > <delta serial="1774" uri="https://rrdp.example.net/1774/delta.xml"; > hash= > "effac94afd30bbf1cd6e180e7f445a4d4653cb4c91068fa9e7b669d49b5aaa00" > /> > <delta serial="1773" uri="https://rrdp.example.net/1773/delta.xml"; > hash= > "731169254dd5de0ede94ba6999bda63b0fae9880873a3710e87a71bafb64761a" > /> > <delta serial="1772 uri="https://rrdp.example.net/1772/delta.xml"; > hash= > "d4087585323fd6b7fd899ebf662ef213c469d39f53839fa6241847f4f6ceb939" > /> > </notification> > ]]> > </sourcecode> > > Figure 3 can be as follows: > > <sourcecode type="xml"> > <![CDATA[ > <notification xmlns="http://www.ripe.net/rpki/rrdp"; version="1" > session_id="fe528335-db5f-48b2-be7e-bf0992d0b5ec" serial="1775"> > <snapshot uri="https://rrdp.example.net/1775/snapshot.xml"; > hash= > "cd430c386deacb04bda55301c2aa49f192b529989b739f412aea01c9a77e5389" > /> > <delta serial="1775" uri="https://rrdp.example.net/1775/delta.xml"; > hash= > "d199376e98a9095dbcf14ccd49208b4223a28a1327669f89566475d94b2b08cc" > /> > <delta serial="1774" uri="https://rrdp.example.net/1774/delta.xml"; > hash= > "10ca28480a584105a059f95df5ca8369142fd7c8069380f84ebe613b8b89f0d3" > /> > <delta serial="1773" uri="https://rrdp.example.net/1773/delta.xml"; > hash= > "731169254dd5de0ede94ba6999bda63b0fae9880873a3710e87a71bafb64761a" > /> > </notification> > ]]> > </sourcecode> > >> Additionally, please consider whether the "type" attribute of any sourcecode >> element should be set. Note that it is also acceptable to leave the "type" >> attribute not set. >> >> The current list of preferred values for "type" is available at >> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types>. >> If the current list does not contain an applicable type, feel free to >> suggest additions for consideration. >> --> > > The type "xml" can be set for both source code sections. > >> 6) <!-- [rfced] In the html and pdf outputs, the text enclosed in <em> >> is output in italics. In the txt output, the text enclosed in <em> >> appears with an underscore before and after. >> >> Please review carefully and let us know if the output is acceptable or >> if any updates are needed. <em> is used as follows (1x each): >> >> <em>differences</em> >> <em>can</em> >> <em>failed fetch</em> >> --> > > Yes, all good. > >> 7) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online >> Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> >> and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically >> result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. >> >> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should >> still be reviewed as a best practice. >> --> > > Upon re-reading the document, I did not see any instances of potentially > problematic language. > >> Thank you. > > Thank you!!! > > Kind regards, > > Job > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
