Hi Authors, This is a friendly reminder that we await your reviews and approvals of the updated files prior to moving this document in the publication process.
The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869.pdf The relevant diff files have been posted here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869-diff.html (comprehensive diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 changes side by side) For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9869 Thank you, Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On Sep 15, 2025, at 11:32 AM, Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Gorry, > > Thank you for your reply. We’ve formatted those notes to appear in the > <aside> element. > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869.pdf > > The relevant diff files have been posted here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869-diff.html (comprehensive diff) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 changes > side by side) > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9869 > > Please note that we are still awaiting a response from RFC-to-be 9868 to > address the terminology question. > > Best regards, > Alanna Paloma > RFC Production Center > >> On Sep 13, 2025, at 12:38 AM, Gorry Fairhurst <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 12/09/2025 21:10, Alanna Paloma wrote: >>> Hi Gorry and Tom, >>> >>> Thank you for your replies. We have updated as requested. >>> >>> Please note that we have some follow-up questions/comments. >> Ah - I see I didn't understand, thanks for the clarification. >>> >>>>> 7) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in this document >>>>> should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container for >>>>> content that is semantically less important or tangential to the >>>>> content that surrounds it" >>>>> (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside). >>>>> - >>>> All extra notes/comments can all be discarded at this stage. >>> ) To clarify, would you like these notes within the document to be >>> discarded, moved into the <aside> element, or left as is? >>> >>> Section 3: >>> Note: UDP allows an Upper Layer protocol to send datagrams with or >>> without payload data (with or without UDP Options). These are >>> delivered across the network to the remote Upper Layer. When >>> DPLPMTUD is implemented within the UDP transport service, probe >>> packets that include a REQ or RES UDP Option can be sent with no UDP >>> payload. In this case, these probe packets were not generated by a >>> sending application; therefore, the corresponding received datagrams >>> are not delivered to the remote application. >>> >>> Section 3.3: >>> Note: A receiver that only responds when there is a datagram queued >>> for transmission by the Upper Layer could potentially receive >>> multiple datagrams with a REQ Option before it can respond. When >>> sent, the RES Option will only acknowledge the latest received token >>> value. A sender would then conclude that any earlier REQ Options >>> were not successfully received. However, DPLPMTUD does not usually >>> result in sending more than one probe packet per timeout interval, >>> and a delay in responding will already have been treated as a failed >>> probe attempt. Therefore, this does not significantly impact >>> performance, although a more prompt response would have resulted in >>> DPLPMTUD recording reception of all probe packets. >> >> I was refering to XML comments, and made the wrong call. >> >> These notes NEED to appear in the published RFC as notes, yes please format >> them as aside elements. >> >> Gorry >> >>> >>>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] We note that this document uses "UDP Options", while >>>>> RFC-to-be 9868 <draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options> uses "UDP options" >>>>> (lowercase). Please review and let us know if these should be made >>>>> consistent. Perhaps lowercase for "UDP options" in general, but "Option" >>>>> when referring to a specific option (e.g., Response (RES) Option). >>>>> >>>>> See <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9868.html>. >>>>> --> >>>>> >>>> This document should be updated to become consistent with the RFC that >>>> will define UDP options, please ammend this document to match the final >>>> format used in the options specification. >>> >>> ) FYI, we will hold off on making these updates until we’ve received a >>> response from RFC-to-be 9868 regarding this terminology. >> OK >>> >>> --- >>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869.xml >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869.txt >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869.pdf >>> >>> The relevant diff files have been posted here: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869-diff.html (comprehensive diff) >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes) >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9869-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 >>> changes side by side) >>> >>> >>> Please review the document carefully and contact us with any further >>> updates you may have. Note that we do not make changes once a document is >>> published as an RFC. >>> >>> We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status page >>> below prior to moving this document forward in the publication process. >>> >>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9869 >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Alanna Paloma >>> RFC Production Center >>> >>>> On Sep 12, 2025, at 9:05 AM, Tom Jones <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Please ammend the draft RFC. I plan to check the rendered document in >>>>> detail after you complete this update. >>>>> >>>> I think Gorry and I concur on these edits, Gorry thanks for the quick >>>> reply. >>>> >>>> - Tom > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
