Hi Erik,

Thank you for your reply. Your approval regarding the BCP 14 key word update 
has been noted on the AUTH48 status page:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9762

Please note that we are still awaiting the outcome of the discussion proposed 
by Jen:

>> 6) <!-- [rfced] *AD and authors - There is an open erratum report against RFC
>> 4861 regarding the text that is being updated in Section 9.1 of this
>> document. Are any updates needed?
>> 
>> See https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8055.
>> -->
> 
> There is no conflict in spirit between the filed erratum and this
> document. But if the erratum is approved then the text of this
> document should be updated to reflect the erratum, and say:
> “Note: If none of the M, O, or P (draft-ietf-6man-pio-pflag) flags are
> set, this indicates that no information is available via DHCPv6 from
> the router, or from other nodes that the router has been made aware
> of".
> 
> With my 6MAN chair hat on: let the chairs discuss it with the AD. I
> think it would be better if the decision for the erratum is made
> before this draft is published.

Best regards,
RFC Editor/ap

> On May 12, 2025, at 11:08 PM, Erik Kline <ek.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> LGTM; thank you!
> 
> On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 8:25 AM Alanna Paloma <apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org> 
> wrote:
> Hi Authors and Erik (AD)*,
> 
> *Erik (AD) - This is another friendly reminder that we are awaiting your 
> review and approval regarding the BCP 14 key word update from “MUST not” to 
> “MUST NOT” in the sentence below:
> 
> Original:
> In particular, enabling or disabling the P flag MUST not trigger
> automatic changes in the A flag value set by the router.
> 
> Current:
> In particular, enabling or disabling the P flag MUST NOT trigger
> automatic changes in the A flag value set by the router.
> 
> See this diff file:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762-auth48diff.html
> 
> Additionally, we are still awaiting word regarding this query:
> >> 6) <!-- [rfced] *AD and authors - There is an open erratum report against 
> >> RFC
> >> 4861 regarding the text that is being updated in Section 9.1 of this
> >> document. Are any updates needed?
> >> 
> >> See https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8055.
> >> -->
> > 
> > There is no conflict in spirit between the filed erratum and this
> > document. But if the erratum is approved then the text of this
> > document should be updated to reflect the erratum, and say:
> > “Note: If none of the M, O, or P (draft-ietf-6man-pio-pflag) flags are
> > set, this indicates that no information is available via DHCPv6 from
> > the router, or from other nodes that the router has been made aware
> > of".
> > 
> > With my 6MAN chair hat on: let the chairs discuss it with the AD. I
> > think it would be better if the decision for the erratum is made
> > before this draft is published.
> 
> 
> Authors - We will await any further updates you may have as well as approvals 
> from each party listed on the AUTH48 status page below prior to moving this 
> document forward in the publication process.
> 
> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762.txt
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762.pdf
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762.xml
> 
> The relevant diff files are posted here:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762-auth48diff.html (all AUTH48 
> changes)
> 
> Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9762
> 
> Thank you,
> RFC Editor/ap
> 
> > On Apr 25, 2025, at 9:54 AM, Alanna Paloma <apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org> 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Authors and Erik (AD)*,
> > 
> > *Erik (AD) - This is a friendly reminder that we are awaiting your review 
> > and approval regarding the BCP 14 key word update from “MUST not” to “MUST 
> > NOT” in the sentence below:
> > 
> > Original:
> > In particular, enabling or disabling the P flag MUST not trigger
> > automatic changes in the A flag value set by the router.
> > 
> > Current:
> > In particular, enabling or disabling the P flag MUST NOT trigger
> > automatic changes in the A flag value set by the router.
> > 
> > See this diff file:
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762-auth48diff.html
> > 
> > Additionally, we are still awaiting word regarding this query:
> >>> 6) <!-- [rfced] *AD and authors - There is an open erratum report against 
> >>> RFC
> >>> 4861 regarding the text that is being updated in Section 9.1 of this
> >>> document. Are any updates needed?
> >>> 
> >>> See https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8055.
> >>> -->
> >> 
> >> There is no conflict in spirit between the filed erratum and this
> >> document. But if the erratum is approved then the text of this
> >> document should be updated to reflect the erratum, and say:
> >> “Note: If none of the M, O, or P (draft-ietf-6man-pio-pflag) flags are
> >> set, this indicates that no information is available via DHCPv6 from
> >> the router, or from other nodes that the router has been made aware
> >> of".
> >> 
> >> With my 6MAN chair hat on: let the chairs discuss it with the AD. I
> >> think it would be better if the decision for the erratum is made
> >> before this draft is published.
> > 
> > 
> > Authors - We will await any further changes you may have and approvals from 
> > each author and the *AD prior to moving forward in the publication process.
> > 
> > The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762.txt
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762.pdf
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762.html
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762.xml
> > 
> > The relevant diff files are posted here:
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762-auth48diff.html (all AUTH48 
> > changes)
> > 
> > Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here:
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9762
> > 
> > Thank you,
> > RFC Editor/ap
> 
> 

-- 
auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org

Reply via email to