That's fine Sandy, thanks.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 01-Jul-25 09:04, Sandy Ginoza wrote:
Hi Brian,
On Jun 30, 2025, at 1:30 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Thanks Sandy. You still have me listed as not approved. Just to be clear, I
have approved everything except the pending changes to the registry titles - I
guess you'd like me to do a final check when that is done?
Sorry for not being clear — I didn’t see an explicit approval from you, so I
thought you might want to review once the registry titles have been updated.
I’m hopeful that you, at minimum, don’t mind being on the hook to confirm the
title updates are correct and there are no concerns about the naming
conventions.
Please let me know if you have any concerns or questions.
Thanks,
RFC Editor/sg
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 01-Jul-25 04:00, Sandy Ginoza wrote:
Hi David and Brian,
Thank you for your replies. David, we have noted your approval on the AUTH48 page
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9812>.
We will notify you when the updates to the IANA registry titles are complete.
Our understanding is that the changes are currently under discussion.
Thanks,
RFC Editor/sg
On Jun 29, 2025, at 9:05 PM, David Farmer <far...@umn.edu> wrote:
I did receive the original email. I have reviewed all the changes, and they
look good to me. It can be published once the IANA registry titles are updated.
Thanks
On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 3:13 PM Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org>
wrote:
Hi Suresh,
Thank you for your review and for letting us know you did not receive the original
AUTH48 mail. We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 page
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9812> and will continue with publication
once approvals and updates to the IANA registry titles are complete.
Thank you,
RFC Editor/sg
On Jun 27, 2025, at 12:59 PM, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krish...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Sandy,
Thanks for your work on this. I also checked and, like Brian, have not
received the original mail. I have read the latest version and it looks good.
Consider my approval complete.
Regards
Suresh
On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 12:00 PM Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org>
wrote:
Hi Brian,
Thank you for your review. We have updated the document as described below and
posted the updated files here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9812.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9812.txt
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9812.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9812.html
AUTH48 diffs:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9812-auth48diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9812-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Comprehensive diffs:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9812-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9812-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
A few notes:
- We are unsure why the initial AUTH48 email was not received. Thank you for
letting us know; we will track whether there are ongoing issues.
- Regarding your name, if you prefer "B. E. Carpenter”, we are happy to update
this document and this form moving forward. Please let us know your preference.
- Regarding "I assume the IANA and RFC Editor actions will be done just before
the actual publication.” — IANA has already updated the registration procedure. We
are working with IANA in the background to coordinate the updates to the registry
titles. I expect you prefer to delay publication of this RFC until the titles have
been updated so the document can be updated accordingly. Please let me know if this
assumption is incorrect.
Thanks,
RFC Editor/sg
On Jun 26, 2025, at 2:02 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I have read the various versions and checked the diffs, and for me this is all
good.
(I assume the IANA and RFC Editor actions will be done just before the actual
publication.)
Other answers in line below.
Thanks much
Brian Carpenter
On 27-Jun-25 06:21, Sandy Ginoza wrote:
Greetings authors,
Please note that we await your review of RFC-to-be 9812. Please let us know
how you would like to address the items below.
Thank you,
RFC Editor/sg
On Jun 18, 2025, at 4:38 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote:
Authors,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary)
the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!--[rfced] This document has been assigned a new BCP number. However,
it is unclear whether this document should be grouped with an existing BCP.
Please review the list of BCPs closely and let us know if the newly
assigned BCP number is correct or if it should be added to an existing BCP.
See the complete list of BCPs here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcps
-->
There is a slight relationship with BCP 153 but I think a new BCP number
is appropriate.
2) <!-- [rfced] Brian, we have updated the document header as shown below
to match what appears in the header of the RFCs you've authored. Please
let us know if you prefer otherwise.
Original: B. E. Carpenter
Current: B. Carpenter
-->
That's fine. A bit too late to change this.
3) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in
the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
4) <!-- [rfced] Regarding the RFC Editor Considerations section, we would
like to avoid setting precedent that stream changes need to be documented
in RFCs. We intend to update the stream metadata for RFC 1881 as requested
(from "Legacy" to "IETF") and remove 'RFC Editor Considerations' (Section
3) from this document, as it's not necessary to capture the metadata
correction within the RFC. Please let us know if you have any strong
objections.
No objection from me. It's the result that counts.
3. RFC Editor Considerations
The RFC Editor is requested to update the "Stream" information for
[RFC1881] to "IETF" in place of "Legacy".
-->
5) <!-- [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.
-->
I see nothing to change.
Thank you.
RFC Editor
On Jun 18, 2025, at 4:36 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote:
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2025/06/18
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/rfc9812.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9812.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9812.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9812.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9812-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9812-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9812-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9812
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC 9812 (draft-ietf-6man-addr-assign-05)
Title : Clarification of IPv6 Address Allocation Policy
Author(s) : B. Carpenter, S. Krishnan, D. Farmer
WG Chair(s) : Bob Hinden, Jen Linkova
Area Director(s) : Erik Kline, Éric Vyncke
--
===============================================
David Farmer Email:far...@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
--
auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
