Responses to the RFC Editor questions are inline... > On Mar 11, 2025, at 2:24 AM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > Brian, > > Authors, > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) > the following questions, which are also in the XML file. > > 1) <!--[rfced] The short title that spans the header of the PDF file has > been updated as follows to more closely align with the document > title. Please let us know of any objections. > > Original: > IGMP IANA > > Current: > IANA Considerations for IGMP > -->
No objections. > > > 2) <!--[rfced] This document obsoletes RFC 3228, which was BCP 57. As > such, we have assigned BCP 57 to this document. Please let us know any > changes are needed. > > See the complete list of BCPs here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcps > --> Looks good. > > > 3) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in > the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> > > > 4) <!-- [rfced] For ease of the reader, we suggest including the IANA > registry name. Do the types and codes get registered in the Internet > Control Message Protocol (ICMP) Parameters registry > <https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmp-parameters>? However, we don't see > "IETF Review" listed > as the registration procedure for any of the registries on that page. > > Perhaps this refers to the "IGMP/MLD Extension Types" registry, which lists > IETF Review and includes a range for Experimental Use? > > Original: > 2.1.2. Multicast Listener Discovery > > As with IGMP, the MLD header also contains Type and Code fields. > Assignment of those fields within the MLD header is defined in > [RFC4443] with a registration policy of IETF Review. > --> The MLD-related tables are in the ICMPv6 Type registry https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/icmpv6-parameters.xhtml#icmpv6-parameters-2 > > > 5) <!--[rfced] For easy reference, would you like to add section numbers > to the following text? If so, please confirm that Sections 5.1 > and 5.2 of [RFC9777] and Sections 4.1 and 4.2 of [RFC9776] are > correct. Note that there are two instances in the text. > > Original: > The Flags Bit value in the registry above corresponds to the column header > in the packet format diagrams in [I-D.ietf-pim-3810bis] and > [I-D.ietf-pim-3376bis]. > > Perhaps: > The Flags Bit value in the registry above corresponds to the column header > in the packet format diagrams in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of [RFC9777] and > Sections 4.1 and 4.2 of [RFC9776]. > --> Yes, please add the section numbers (and those are the correct section numbers). > > > 6) <!-- [rfced] Because the E-bit appears in both tables with a reference, > the text that follows seems redundant. Perhaps "The initial contents..." > text can be removed? > > | 0 | E | Extension | RFC 9279 | > > ... > The initial contents of this requested registry should contain the > E-bit defined in [RFC9279]. > > > | 0 | E | Extension | RFC 9279 | > > ... > The initial contents of this requested registry should contain the > E-bit defined in [RFC9279]. > --> Yes, that clause can be dropped. > > > 7) <!-- [rfced] As RFCs 9776 and 9777 are being with this document, please > consider whether the references should be to the individual RFCs or the > STDs instead. > —> I think the references should be to the STDs. > > > 8) <!-- [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. > --> This all seems good. Regards, Brian > > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor > > > > > On Mar 10, 2025, at 11:07 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > Updated 2025/03/10 > > RFC Author(s): > -------------- > > Instructions for Completing AUTH48 > > Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and > approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. > If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies > available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). > > You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties > (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing > your approval. > > Planning your review > --------------------- > > Please review the following aspects of your document: > > * RFC Editor questions > > Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor > that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as > follows: > > <!-- [rfced] ... --> > > These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. > > * Changes submitted by coauthors > > Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your > coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you > agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. > > * Content > > Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot > change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: > - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) > - contact information > - references > > * Copyright notices and legends > > Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in > RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions > (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). > > * Semantic markup > > Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of > content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> > and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at > <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. > > * Formatted output > > Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the > formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is > reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting > limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. > > > Submitting changes > ------------------ > > To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all > the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties > include: > > * your coauthors > > * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team) > > * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., > IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the > responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). > > * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list > to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion > list: > > * More info: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc > > * The archive itself: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ > > * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out > of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). > If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you > have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and > its addition will be noted at the top of the message. > > You may submit your changes in one of two ways: > > An update to the provided XML file > — OR — > An explicit list of changes in this format > > Section # (or indicate Global) > > OLD: > old text > > NEW: > new text > > You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit > list of changes, as either form is sufficient. > > We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem > beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, > and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in > the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. > > > Approving for publication > -------------------------- > > To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating > that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, > as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. > > > Files > ----- > > The files are available here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9778.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9778.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9778.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9778.txt > > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9778-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9778-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff of the XML: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9778-xmldiff1.html > > > Tracking progress > ----------------- > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9778 > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > > -------------------------------------- > RFC 9778 (draft-ietf-pim-3228bis-07) > > Title : IANA Considerations for Internet Group Management Protocols > Author(s) : B. Haberman > WG Chair(s) : Stig Venaas, Mike McBride > > Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, John Scudder, Gunter Van de Velde > >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
