Hi Brian and Bob, Thank you for addressing all of our questions. We have updated the document accordingly.
We have also noted Brian's approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9844). Bob, please let us know if you approve the document in its current form or if any further updates are needed. — FILES (please refresh) — Updated XML file: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9844.xml Updated output files: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9844.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9844.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9844.html Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9844-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9844-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff files showing all changes: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9844-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9844-rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9844-alt-diff.html (diff showing changes where text is moved or deleted) For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9844 Thank you, RFC Editor/rv > On Aug 12, 2025, at 5:38 PM, Bob Hinden <bob.hin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I am in agreement with Brian’s response. > > Bob > > >> On Aug 12, 2025, at 1:52 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I have carefully reviewed this version and am happy with it. My answers to >> the queries are in line below. >> >> Regards/Ngā mihi >> Brian Carpenter >> >> On 12-Aug-25 15:46, 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 updates RFC 7622, which has some errata. >>> Please review the errata reported for RFC 7622 and let us know if >>> you confirm our opinion that none of them are relevant to the content >>> of this document. >>> Link to errata for RFC 7622: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc7622 >>> --> >> >> Agreed, these errata are irrelevant, >> >>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in >>> the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> >>> 3) <!-- [rfced] The title for [ONE-NET] in the text and the reference entry >>> are >>> different. Which is correct? We see both forms used in the URL in the >>> reference entry. Let us know which form to use consistently in this >>> document. >>> Original: >>> 5. The National Marine Electronics Association (NMEA) has defined >>> the "OneNet Marine IPv6 Ethernet Networking Standard" [ONE-NET], >>> which uses IPv6 link-local addresses exclusively. >>> ... >>> [ONE-NET] NMEA, "The OneNet Standard for IP Networking of Marine >>> Electronic Devices", 2023, >>> <https://www.nmea.org/nmea-onenet.html>. >>> --> >> >> The heading of that web page is "OneNet® Marine IPv6 Ethernet Networking >> Standard" so I think we should go with that everywhere. I leave it to your >> policy whether to include the "®". >> >>> 4) <!-- [rfced] How may we update "e.g., [LL-HACK]"? >>> Original: >>> Such requirements have already spawned hacks to work around current >>> limitations (e.g., [LL-HACK], which is no longer maintained and has >>> been archived). >>> Perhaps: >>> Such requirements have already spawned hacks to work around current >>> limitations (e.g., the Snippets:IPv6 link local connect hack [LL-HACK], >>> which is no longer maintained and has been archived). >>> Or: >>> Such requirements have already spawned hacks to work around current >>> limitations (e.g., the hack described in [LL-HACK], which is no longer >>> maintained and has been archived). >>> --> >> >> The second variant seems fine to me. >> >>> 5) <!-- [rfced] Please review "NULL characters" in the sentence below. >>> Should >>> this instead be "NULs" (that is, referring to the specific ASCII control >>> code) or "null characters"? >>> Original: >>> For example, a UI implementation should not allow ASCII >>> NULL characters in a zone identifier string as this could cause >>> inconsistencies in subsequent string processing. >>> --> >> >> Good catch. How about simply s/NULL/NUL/ ? That would be quite clear to the >> reader. I think "NULs" would look a bit strange. >> >>> 6) <!-- [rfced] We reordered one name in the Acknowledgments section as it >>> seems that the intent was to list the names in alphabetical order by last >>> name. Let us know any concerns. >>> --> >> >> Good catch. >> >>> 7) <!-- [rfced] FYI - Per earlier discussion, the RPC will update metadata >>> for >>> RFC 3986 and create an erratum report on RFC 6874 as described below >>> after publication of this document. >>>> From email from Sandy Ginoza (RPC) on 20 May 2025 with subject line "Re: >>> Datatracker State Update Notice: <draft-ietf-6man-zone-ui-10.txt>": >>> This is the current metadata for RFC 3986 (STD 66): Obsoletes RFC 2732, RFC >>> 2396, RFC 1808, Updates RFC 1738, Updated by RFC 6874, RFC 7320, RFC 8820 >>> I believe the goal is for it to be updated as follows (remove mention of >>> 6874): Obsoletes RFC 2732, RFC 2396, RFC 1808, Updates RFC 1738, Updated by >>> RFC 7320, RFC 8820 >>> For the reader that may land on RFC 6874, add an erratum on RFC 6874 with >>> the >>> content (or similar) below when draft-ietf-6man-zone-ui is published as an >>> RFC. >>> This was found unimplementable and no longer updates RFC 3986. Please see >>> [RFC9844] for more info. >>> --> >> >> Yes, good. >> >>> 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. >>> For example, please consider whether "native" should be updated: >>> Original: >>> It will become critical as IPv6-only or IPv6-mostly >>> networks [RFC8925] [I-D.ietf-v6ops-6mops], with nodes lacking native >>> IPv4 support, appear. >>> --> >> >> No change. This is a term of art. >> >> Thanks. >> >>> Thank you. >>> RFC Editor/rv >>> On Aug 11, 2025, at 8:43 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: >>> *****IMPORTANT***** >>> Updated 2025/08/11 >>> 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/rfc9844.xml >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9844.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9844.pdf >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9844.txt >>> Diff file of the text: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9844-diff.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9844-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >>> Alt-diff of the text (allows you to more easily view changes >>> where text has been deleted or moved): >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9844-alt-diff.html >>> Diff of the XML: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9844-xmldiff1.html >>> Tracking progress >>> ----------------- >>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9844 >>> Please let us know if you have any questions. >>> Thank you for your cooperation, >>> RFC Editor >>> -------------------------------------- >>> RFC9844 (draft-ietf-6man-zone-ui-10) >>> Title : Entering IPv6 Zone Identifiers in User Interfaces >>> Author(s) : B. Carpenter, B. Hinden >>> WG Chair(s) : Bob Hinden, Jen Linkova >>> Area Director(s) : Erik Kline, Éric Vyncke > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
