Hi Karen, Thank you for the help from you and all the RFC Editors.
I agree with Jeff's comments. About use of the word "traditional", I lean in the direction of what Warren has recommended: "I think that "traditional" is the better word here,..." About the following : 9) <!-- [rfced] FYI: We updated the reference entry for [Analysis] to match the guidance for referencing web-based public code repositories in the Web Portion of the RFC Style Guide (https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#ref_repo) ..... Current: [Analysis] "Detailed analysis of AS_SETs in BGP updates", commit eb0fc22, March 2022, <https://github.com/ksriram25/IETF/blob/main/Detailed- AS_SET-analysis.txt>. --> No problem. The change you have made is acceptable. I have added the authors names and contact info at the top of the file in GitHub. Please update the commit to ef3f4a9 in the citation. I have looked at the whole updated document, and assuming the above change (commit #) would incorporated, I approve this RFC for publication. Sriram
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
