Hi Alanna, This update is complete:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters Thanks, Sabrina On Tue Jun 10 22:50:54 2025, apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org wrote: > IANA, > > Please update the "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Prefix Information Option > Flags” registry to capitalize ”preferred flag” in the Description of > PIO Option Bit 3. > > Old: > PIO Option Bit Description > 3 P - DHCPv6-PD preferred flag > > New: > PIO Option Bit Description > 3 P - DHCPv6-PD Preferred Flag > > Diff file is here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762-diff.html > > Best regards, > RFC Editor/ap > > > > On Jun 10, 2025, at 3:48 PM, Alanna Paloma <apal...@staff.rfc- > > editor.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Authors, > > > > David - Thank you for your reply. We have updated the files per the > > nits you pointed out. > > > > 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) > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762-lastdiff.html (htmlwdiff > > diff between last version and this) > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff > > between last version and this) > > > > And we have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9762 > > > > All - As we have received all author approvals, we will now ask IANA > > to update their registry accordingly. After the IANA updates are > > complete, we will move forward with the publication process. > > > > Thank you, > > RFC Editor/ap > > > >> On Jun 10, 2025, at 10:13 AM, David 'equinox' Lamparter > >> <equi...@diac24.net> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Alanna & all, > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Jun 05, 2025 at 08:50:55AM -0700, Alanna Paloma wrote: > >>> 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 > >> > >> I've reread it and I only noticed one language nit that I'd like to > >> raise: > >> > >> Under "7.2. Using Delegated Prefix(es)" > >> > >> "The client MAY use the prefix to allow devices directly connected > >> to it > >> to obtain IPv6 addresses. For example, the client MAY route traffic > >> for > >> that prefix to **the=>an** interface and send a RA containing a PIO > >> for > >> the prefix on **the=>that** interface. That interface MUST NOT be > >> the > >> interface the prefix is obtained from. If the client advertises the > >> prefix on an interface and it has formed addresses from the prefix, > >> then > >> it MUST act as though the addresses were assigned to that interface > >> for > >> the purposes of Neighbor Discovery and Duplicate Address Detection." > >> > >> (Note inline marking with **text**) > >> > >> This is - boiled down - "the interface, the interface, that > >> interface > >> MUST NOT be the interface obtained from, an interface, that > >> interface." > >> > >> The first 2 "the" are confusing and should be "an" and "that", as is > >> done later. The only "the" interface here should be "the interface > >> the > >> prefix is obtained from". The first 2 references to interfaces are > >> the > >> same in referring to some other interface as in the 2nd half, where > >> (IMHO correctly) "an" and "that" are used. > >> > >> > >> I don't believe it's absolutely necessary to fix this, I don't see > >> it as > >> a content/correctness problem, just language that raised a "weird" > >> flag > >> for me. > >> > >> Either way: Approved (with or without this edit). > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> > >> -David > >> > >> > >> P.S.: I really wasn't sure whether to say something about such a > >> tiny > >> issue, I hope this doesn't trigger an avalanche... also apologies > >> for > >> not getting to this earlier :(. > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
