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 <apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org> 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; however, we ask that at least > one author review the updates and confirm that the document is ready for > publication. > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9756.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9756.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9756.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9756.pdf > > The relevant diff files have been posted here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9756-diff.html (comprehensive diff) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9756-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 > changes) > > Please review the document carefully and contact us with any further > updates you may have. Note that we do not make changes once a document is > published as an RFC. > > We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status page > below prior to moving this document forward in the publication process. > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9756 > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/ap > > > On Mar 3, 2025, at 12:59 PM, Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk> wrote: > > > > Hi there, > > > > Thanks for the work. > > > > In line... > > > > 1) <!--[rfced] Title > > > > a) We note that the document's title expands PCEP as "PCE > > Communication Protocol"; however, the IANA registry group > > expands it as "Path Computation Element Protocol" (see > > <https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>). Should this > > document's title be updated to reflect the name of the > > registry group being updated, with the inclusion of > > "Numbers", as shown below? > > > > Original: > > Update to the IANA PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) Registration > > Procedures and Allowing Experimental Error Codes > > > > Perhaps: > > Update to the IANA Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) > > Numbers Registration Procedures and the Allowance of > > Experimental Error Codes > > > > [AF] Yes to both changes. > > > > b) FYI - To closer reflect the document's full title, we have updated > > the short title as follows. The short title appears in the running > > header in the PDF output. > > > > Original: > > PCEP-IANA > > > > Current: > > PCEP IANA Update > > --> > > > > [AF] Fine > > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in > > the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> > > > > [AF] Unusually, I can't think of any. Such a simple document and the > title says it all. > > > > 3) <!--[rfced] To avoid repetition of "case", may we update this > > sentence as follows? > > > > Original: > > It will often be the case that previously assigned > > error codes (in the PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values sub- > > registry) can be used to indicate the error cases within an > > experiment, but there may also be cases where new, experimental error > > codes are needed. > > > > Perhaps: > > It will often be that previously assigned > > error codes (in the PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values sub- > > registry) can be used to indicate the error cases within an > > experiment, but there may also be instances where new, experimental > error > > codes are needed. > > --> > > > > [AF] Fine > > > > 4) <!--[rfced] Would it be clearer for readers if the following > > information matches the IANA registry and is in table format > > (see <https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/>)? Please let > > us know your preference. > > > > Original: > > IANA is requested to change the assignment policy for this registry to > > read: > > > > Error-Types > > > > 0-251 : IETF Review > > > > 252-255 : Experimental Use > > > > Error-value > > > > For all IETF Review Error-Types : IETF Review > > > > For all Experimental Use Error-Types : Experimental Use > > > > Perhaps: > > IANA has changed the assignment policy for the "PCEP-ERROR Object > Error > > Types and Values" registry as follows: > > > > > > Range Registration Procedures Note > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > - - - - > > 0-251 IETF Review The IETF Review procedure applies to all > > Error-values (0-255) for > Error-Types in > > this range. > > > > 252-255 Experimental Use The Experimental Use policy applies > to all > > Error-values (0-255) for > Error-Types in > > this range. > > > > > > Table 2: PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values Registry > > Assignment Policy > > --> > > > > [AF] Sure. Especially as this is what IANA has done :-) > > > > 5) <!--[rfced] FYI - For consistency, and because the capitalization > infers > > that these are procedures, we have removed the quotation marks from > > the following terms. > > > > "Standards Action" > > "IETF Review" > > --> > > > > [AF] I'm giggling at the idea that capitalisation implies a procedure. I > will remember that for future arguments. > > But, yes, the quotation marks are de trop. > > > > 6) <!-- [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. > > --> > > > > [AF] I scanned again, but found nothing of concern. > > > > Thanks again, > > Adrian. > > > >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
