How do I approve the RFC as the author?

On Wed, Oct 1, 2025 at 3:20 PM Sarah Tarrant
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Orie,
>
> Thank you for the approval! It's been noted at: 
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9873
>
> Sincerely,
> Sarah Tarrant
> RFC Production Center
>
> > On Oct 1, 2025, at 8:16 AM, Orie <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I approve these changes.
> >
> > OS
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 1, 2025 at 8:08 AM Sarah Tarrant 
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi Scott and *Orie,
> >
> > *AD Orie - Could you please verify that the following update to BCP14 
> > language is approved?
> >
> > "employ" updated to "MUST employ" (parallel structure with "MUST NOT 
> > depend") in:
> >
> > Original:
> >   The XML namespace prefix "addlEmail" is used for the namespace
> >   "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:addlEmail-1.0", but implementations MUST
> >   NOT depend on it and instead employ a proper namespace-aware XML
> >   parser and serializer to interpret and output the XML documents.
> >
> > Current:
> >   The XML namespace prefix "addlEmail" is used for the namespace
> >   "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:addlEmail-1.0", but implementations MUST
> >   NOT depend on it and instead MUST employ a proper namespace-aware
> >   XML parser and serializer to interpret and output the XML documents.
> >
> > Also viewable at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9873-auth48diff.html
> > ----
> >
> > Scott - Thank you for your reply. We have updated accordingly and have no 
> > further questions.
> >
> > Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not 
> > make changes once it has been published as an RFC.  Contact us with any 
> > further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form.  
> > We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the 
> > publication process.
> >
> > The updated files have been posted here (please refresh):
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9873.txt
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9873.pdf
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9873.html
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9873.xml
> >
> > The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh):
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9873-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9873-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes 
> > only)
> >
> > Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the 
> > most recent version.
> >
> > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9873
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Sarah Tarrant
> > RFC Production Center
> >
> >
> > > On Sep 25, 2025, at 7:19 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott 
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2025 8:18 PM
> > >> To: [email protected]; Gould, James <[email protected]>; Hollenbeck,
> > >> Scott <[email protected]>
> > >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; 
> > >> [email protected];
> > >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> > >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9873 
> > >> <draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-27>
> > >> for your review
> > >>
> > >> Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not 
> > >> click links
> > >> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content 
> > >> is
> > >> safe.
> > >>
> > >> Authors,
> > >>
> > >> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as 
> > >> necessary)
> > >> the following questions, which are also in the source file.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in 
> > >> the title)
> > >> for use on https://secure-
> > >> web.cisco.com/1ZsR3tGYN7sGtmWyn9l95Z7TcV61KEXYrZeD_Mpd713QOiokMKt
> > >> mX-DTM9CMYXKJTnWO2JMly51l2wU5UiVy29IY8elM6XJQB6r-
> > >> qOcS0EFbqisRIwH1gJ62BjM6ddzDPy5eRGJb2fxYehs3pt1-UZMvSKWzD-
> > >> JdACt2khJb5zW3oXNOfGhGvuNQBtKIfwCZ9FIEuSfmtsusZcvlPeujOupeOro2fm4D
> > >> w3M6Hgc7a5rPuPj4qd1Xe2_vvdNXktC8z4pyF2vdg8_gD8OF5z___rWwS90cbYIyf
> > >> sbuGZZsvGro/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fsearch -->
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 2) <!-- [rfced] Should "employ" be updated to "MUST employ" (parallel
> > >> structure with "MUST NOT depend")? Or is the current correct?
> > >>
> > >> Original:
> > >>   The XML namespace prefix "addlEmail" is used for the namespace
> > >>   "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:addlEmail-1.0", but implementations MUST
> > >>   NOT depend on it and instead employ a proper namespace-aware XML
> > >>   parser and serializer to interpret and output the XML documents.
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps:
> > >>   The XML namespace prefix "addlEmail" is used for the namespace
> > >>   "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:addlEmail-1.0", but implementations MUST
> > >>   NOT depend on it and instead MUST employ a proper namespace-aware
> > >>   XML parser and serializer to interpret and output the XML documents.
> > >> -->
> > >
> > > [SAH] The proposed update is correct.
> > >
> > >> 3) <!-- [rfced] This sentence is a bit hard to follow because of the many
> > >> commas. We added parentheses rather than commas around the "defined in"
> > >> phrases and added "to support" before "U-label" in this sentence. Please 
> > >> let us
> > >> know any concerns.
> > >>
> > >> Original:
> > >>   [RFC6531] extends the
> > >>   Mailbox, Local-part and Domain ABNF rules in [RFC5321] to support
> > >>   "UTF8-non-ascii", defined in Section 3.1 of [RFC6532], for the local-
> > >>   part and U-label, defined in Section 2.3.2.1 of [RFC5890], for the
> > >>   domain.
> > >>
> > >> Current:
> > >>   [RFC6531] extends the
> > >>   Mailbox, Local-part, and Domain ABNF rules in [RFC5321] to support
> > >>   "UTF8-non-ascii" (defined in Section 3.1 of [RFC6532]) for the local-
> > >>   part and to support U-label (defined in Section 2.3.2.1 of [RFC5890]) 
> > >> for the
> > >>   domain.
> > >> -->
> > >
> > > [SAH] The proposed update is fine.
> > >
> > >> 4) <!-- [rfced] Should "that support" here be updated to just "support"? 
> > >> Is is
> > >> another meaning intended?
> > >>
> > >> Original:
> > >>   *  Any address included in an extension is intended to be an
> > >>      additional address that's associated only with the primary
> > >>      <contact:email> address, and that support for any other additional
> > >>      email addresses MUST explicitly describe how the additional
> > >>      addresses are associated with the existing addresses.
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps:
> > >>   *  Any address included in an extension is intended to be an
> > >>      additional address that is associated only with the primary
> > >>      <contact:email> address, and support for any other additional
> > >>      email addresses MUST explicitly describe how the additional
> > >>      addresses are associated with the existing addresses.
> > >> -->
> > >
> > > [SAH] The proposed update is fine.
> > >
> > >> 5) <!-- [rfced] In the first bulleted list in Section 4.2.1, the list 
> > >> items all begin
> > >> with a verb except for the following one. How may we update this one to 
> > >> create
> > >> parallel structure?
> > >>
> > >> Original:
> > >>   *  Storage of email properties that support internationalized
> > >>      characters.
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps:
> > >>   *  Store email properties that support internationalized
> > >>      characters.
> > >>
> > >> Or:
> > >>   *  Maintain storage of email properties that support internationalized
> > >>      characters.
> > >> -->
> > >
> > > [SAH] I prefer "Store email properties". Please make that change.
> > >
> > >> 6) <!-- [rfced] This document includes 8 figures. For each of them, the 
> > >> text
> > >> introducing the figure and the figure title are almost identical. We 
> > >> suggest
> > >> removing the intro text and keeping the figure title to avoid 
> > >> redundancy. Let us
> > >> know your thoughts.
> > >>
> > >> Example:
> > >>
> > >>  The following is an example <info> contact response using the
> > >>  <addlEmail:addlEmail> extension with no alternate email address:
> > >>  ...
> > >>        Figure 1: Example <info> Contact Response Using the
> > >>  <addlEmail:addlEmail> Extension with No Alternate Email Address
> > >> -->
> > >
> > > [SAH] The proposed update is fine.
> > >
> > >> 7) <!-- [rfced] Should the title of Section 5.1.3 be updated from "Query
> > >> Command"
> > >> to just "Command" for consistency with the other titles in this section?
> > >>
> > >> Original:
> > >>     5.1.  EPP Query Commands
> > >>       5.1.1.  EPP <check> Command
> > >>       5.1.2.  EPP <info> Command
> > >>       5.1.3.  EPP <transfer> Query Command
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps:
> > >>     5.1.  EPP Query Commands
> > >>       5.1.1.  EPP <check> Command
> > >>       5.1.2.  EPP <info> Command
> > >>       5.1.3.  EPP <transfer> Command
> > >> -->
> > >
> > > [SAH] Please keep the text as-is. The current text is consistent with the 
> > > core EPP RFCs and helps distinguish query commands from transform 
> > > commands.
> > >
> > >> 8) <!-- [rfced] How may we update "an object mapping like [RFC5733]"
> > >> in these sentences? Is the intended meaning "an object mapping like the 
> > >> one
> > >> described in [RFC5733]" or something else?
> > >>
> > >> Original:
> > >>   This extension defines additional elements to extend the EPP <create>
> > >>   command of an object mapping like [RFC5733].
> > >
> > > [SAH] Please use this: "This extension defines additional elements to 
> > > extend the EPP <create> command described in [RFC5733]."
> > >
> > >>   ...
> > >>   In addition to the EPP
> > >>   command elements described in an object mapping like [RFC5733], the
> > >>   command MUST contain a child <addlEmail:addlEmail> element
> > >>   (Section 3) for the client to set an alternate email address.
> > >
> > > [SAH] Please use this: "In addition to the EPP command elements described 
> > > in [RFC5733]..."
> > >
> > >>   This extension defines additional elements to extend the EPP <update>
> > >>   command of an object mapping like [RFC5733].
> > >
> > > [SAH] Please use this: "This extension defines additional elements to 
> > > extend the EPP <update> command described in [RFC5733]."
> > >
> > >>   In addition to the EPP
> > >>   command elements described in an object mapping like [RFC5733], the
> > >>   command MUST contain a child <addlEmail:addlEmail> element
> > >>   (Section 3) for the client to set or unset an alternate email
> > >>   address.
> > >>
> > > [SAH] Please use this: "In addition to the EPP command elements described 
> > > in [RFC5733]..."
> > >
> > >> Perhaps:
> > >>   This extension defines additional elements to extend the EPP <create>
> > >>   command of an object mapping like the one described in [RFC5733].
> > >>   ...
> > >>   In addition to the EPP
> > >>   command elements described in an object mapping
> > >>   (like the one in [RFC5733]), the
> > >>   command MUST contain a child <addlEmail:addlEmail> element
> > >>   (Section 3) for the client to set an alternate email address.
> > >>   ...
> > >>   This extension defines additional elements to extend the EPP <update>
> > >>   command of an object mapping like the one described in [RFC5733].
> > >>   ...
> > >>   In addition to the EPP
> > >>   command elements described in an object mapping
> > >>   (like the one in [RFC5733]), the
> > >>   command MUST contain a child <addlEmail:addlEmail> element
> > >>   (Section 3) for the client to set or unset an alternate email
> > >>   address.
> > >> -->
> > >
> > > [SAH] See above.
> > >
> > >> 9) <!-- [rfced] Should this sentence be updated to include "XML 
> > >> schemas"? We
> > >> ask because we see this in other RFCs (e.g., RFCs 9167, 9095, 9022).
> > >>
> > >> Original:
> > >>   This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces conforming to a
> > >>   registry mechanism described in RFC 3688 [RFC3688].
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps:
> > >>   This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces and XML schemas
> > >>   conforming to a
> > >>   registry mechanism described in [RFC3688].
> > >> -->
> > >
> > > Yes, please make that change.
> > >
> > >> 10) <!-- [rfced] Would including a citation for "IDNA2008" be helpful for
> > >> readers? Perhaps to [RFC5895]? Also, how may we clarify what the 
> > >> domain-part
> > >> should conform to?
> > >>
> > >> Original:
> > >>   The domain-part of these SMTPUTF8 email addresses SHOULD
> > >>   conform to IDNA2008.
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps:
> > >>   The domain-part of these SMTPUTF8 email addresses SHOULD
> > >>   conform to the guidelines in IDNA2008 [RFC5895].
> > >> -->
> > >
> > > Please cite RFC 5891. It describes the protocol for label syntax.
> > >
> > >> 11) <!-- [rfced] May we revise "of the code points allowed by IDNA Rules 
> > >> and
> > >> Derived Property Values" in one of the following ways?
> > >>
> > >> Original:
> > >>   To reduce the risk of the use of invalid domain names in email
> > >>   addresses, registries SHOULD validate the domain name syntax in
> > >>   provided email addresses and validate whether the domain name
> > >>   consists of the code points allowed by IDNA Rules and Derived
> > >>   Property Values (https://secure-web.cisco.com/1QFzD_XnkNpfB-
> > >> WjBVrf6PbAKJWlemKY6666-LVqc7AP5Hw8Yx4-
> > >> PC7WNNcNf8ca5GNaoN9ZWfudjr_o_5FxHfWhm62gviz3MtWMsxwWvM0u8wQ
> > >> yp07c5MjDVy3owwZEqpgrfLBnPf-
> > >> 7fJ_rID3J_onz2uI49JAfv8s3LJ2eaizVJYKH1EmZPy2yTqzKb7bS2xKwggi7fTdEg8hUG
> > >> aEhpYmt_k9MFsa4Pzzw-m8U3CvdNHBYGIb3RALPhCcCW2AUc-
> > >> 6bMf7mF9jWYtRNDuAJwCVkVHmwvvFDrEk-
> > >> 5q4MibRE/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fidna-tables).
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps:
> > >>   To reduce the risk of the use of invalid domain names in email
> > >>   addresses, registries SHOULD validate the domain name syntax in
> > >>   provided email addresses and validate whether the domain name
> > >>   consists of the code points listed in the "IDNA Rules and Derived
> > >>   Property Values" registry (https://secure-web.cisco.com/1QFzD_XnkNpfB-
> > >> WjBVrf6PbAKJWlemKY6666-LVqc7AP5Hw8Yx4-
> > >> PC7WNNcNf8ca5GNaoN9ZWfudjr_o_5FxHfWhm62gviz3MtWMsxwWvM0u8wQ
> > >> yp07c5MjDVy3owwZEqpgrfLBnPf-
> > >> 7fJ_rID3J_onz2uI49JAfv8s3LJ2eaizVJYKH1EmZPy2yTqzKb7bS2xKwggi7fTdEg8hUG
> > >> aEhpYmt_k9MFsa4Pzzw-m8U3CvdNHBYGIb3RALPhCcCW2AUc-
> > >> 6bMf7mF9jWYtRNDuAJwCVkVHmwvvFDrEk-
> > >> 5q4MibRE/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fidna-tables).
> > >>
> > >> Or:
> > >>   To reduce the risk of the use of invalid domain names in email
> > >>   addresses, registries SHOULD validate the domain name syntax in
> > >>   provided email addresses and validate whether the domain name
> > >>   consists of the allowed code points, i.e., those allocated in the
> > >>   "IDNA Rules and Derived Property Values" registry
> > >>   (https://secure-web.cisco.com/1QFzD_XnkNpfB-WjBVrf6PbAKJWlemKY6666-
> > >> LVqc7AP5Hw8Yx4-
> > >> PC7WNNcNf8ca5GNaoN9ZWfudjr_o_5FxHfWhm62gviz3MtWMsxwWvM0u8wQ
> > >> yp07c5MjDVy3owwZEqpgrfLBnPf-
> > >> 7fJ_rID3J_onz2uI49JAfv8s3LJ2eaizVJYKH1EmZPy2yTqzKb7bS2xKwggi7fTdEg8hUG
> > >> aEhpYmt_k9MFsa4Pzzw-m8U3CvdNHBYGIb3RALPhCcCW2AUc-
> > >> 6bMf7mF9jWYtRNDuAJwCVkVHmwvvFDrEk-
> > >> 5q4MibRE/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fidna-tables).
> > >> -->
> > >
> > > [SAH] I like the first option. Please use it.
> > >
> > >> 12) <!-- [rfced] Would you like the references to be alphabetized or 
> > >> left in their
> > >> current order?
> > >> -->
> > >
> > > [SAH] Alphabetized, please.
> > >
> > >> 13) <!-- [rfced] We note inconsistencies in the terms below throughout 
> > >> the text.
> > >> Should these be uniform? If so, please let us know which form is 
> > >> preferred.
> > >>
> > >> command-response extension
> > >> command and response extension
> > >
> > > [SAH] Please use "command-response extension".
> > >
> > >> local-part
> > >> localpart
> > >
> > > [SAH] Please use "local-part".
> > >
> > >> ASCII alternate email address
> > >> alternate ASCII email address
> > >
> > > [SAH] Please use "alternate ASCII email address".
> > >
> > >> all-ASCII
> > >> ASCII-only
> > >> -->
> > >
> > > [SAH] Please use "ASCII-only".
> > >
> > >> 14) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for the following
> > >> abbreviation(s) per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide").
> > >> Please review each expansion in the document carefully to ensure 
> > >> correctness.
> > >>
> > >> Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)
> > >> -->
> > >
> > > [SAH] That's fine.
> > >
> > >> 15) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the 
> > >> online
> > >> Style Guide <https://secure-
> > >> web.cisco.com/1EpIBqSv2djqdFD93a4O8wDFONc_xXs77r5iDr0IxJH8rDbwRjGoJ
> > >> Cttj7vhViX3oclmCBN1EBVn4Cx5U39cniNr2HwK4Jtx3vPzraPFY91-kDXjPan4fiBO-
> > >> wbUcxyruUWBvQ_g6vEc6XjiZtCnubr9ameNHduVMbuqjbj24CK38hS5D9qWtPpZ
> > >> _POtDEVL7q3flhYzM6HphC30lVgRmEb1e_u3KTGplalMRcXxLtU60y8-
> > >> 499SM5GeTzO_a9uMCavuMOD4EjxPB2zLIx21bzV9ypOMqI9ocH-
> > >> KuQGo_E18/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
> > >> editor.org%2Fstyleguide%2Fpart2%2F%23inclusive_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 "natively" should be updated:
> > >>
> > >> Original:
> > >>   The Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) does not natively support
> > >>   internationalized email addresses because the specifications for
> > >>   these addresses did not exist when the EPP was developed.
> > >> -->
> > >
> > > [SAH] Please change "natively" to "inherently".
> > >
> > >> Thank you.
> > >>
> > >> Sarah Tarrant and Rebecca VanRheenen
> > >> RFC Production Center
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sep 24, 2025, at 5:13 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> > >>
> > >> *****IMPORTANT*****
> > >>
> > >> Updated 2025/09/24
> > >>
> > >> 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://secure-
> > >> web.cisco.com/1SMDEezwBs_KZJJS2lPui3tlV6zSuw5ZvQ1TnfVZbL1Qf_u63P0Ga3
> > >> VZTkSEix5kzgiysmVi-
> > >> IiLgRQXPaoG9L6Vhr3DKws29IBfIBcG3sz3PgP8KNnKlQrz7qRpbveCanQ6-
> > >> 8LvlVsGgra58UI8f3rMJT7FLgH8_ud3H7_xaW-
> > >> ucDI1QFSFApgC2SnmVB4ZmqOw7_E8XqVLYePO6VNkDDincRKqArlvlo5TQsl7uek
> > >> Qf5rsE5eUC0NpRoZO4a-
> > >> EivKv0B0SbDCSVoRzfzLVlUP9MblIKIkAbAs3r5dGi6fE/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
> > >> editor.org%2Ffaq%2F).
> > >>
> > >> 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://secure-
> > >> web.cisco.com/1Bl31SM1PL4FeEsFoc62h3C3DZpYU_IynOdIK-
> > >> SfwKLER5l3jPbClR9XUIRg_lC6t4yDqwn8Bp9AAl7LPeSgTstqXAQkg-
> > >> P5SkVRwr9QwMWzSfNfRsBG-fWEmr_X-bmB7RqxbE7aH_rHEMVCxmwFNo-
> > >> 4As95V9ueztFUlgBundjmgegmctF3-
> > >> ilF07DsHDwM7rEJdJ4bw7WI6dJ2gvurt4oNgeZ7CZAbZbIgDRFYTQygl2YfQa4zzMH
> > >> sKIv90QwAgL5VpVhD2YjbXksucJ5EyVzS27esGVQ8jqKhwNb8O94pSQI5EE_6GIb_A
> > >> rpfDt49h/https%3A%2F%2Ftrustee.ietf.org%2Flicense-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://secure-
> > >> web.cisco.com/12sdMCyHc7pYxvWwY3NeiV7uSCsLjOnFg7gn_PjezxAM92Fuy7J1
> > >> _F1-vcETGHeLM2IJt-VYY6oueRl_eXCFG7W1bNgz-
> > >> QH32qh7M0NOOf07XlQZnfba5u3HkZOi7WeechNWZGVbwd5qzUkmH9SlfLEki8f
> > >> xa5j9AYzZ1r3VgOZXTQMzU2zYWnosLdia3j7e1dwDX6S0tStUO8cdG6aI0jAAYX1y6
> > >> kTQY-Q0685DWZerGmpNAblDgCTsGP-
> > >> SIbPgOdUmGOFIrLB2h0pZwXmiChyq7BfVoJJK-
> > >> _cqcOvg41doCzNd0ZFekRt0dmpFpFuJ5/https%3A%2F%2Fauthors.ietf.org%2Frfcx
> > >> ml-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
> > >>
> > >>  *  [email protected] (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).
> > >>
> > >>  *  [email protected], which is a new archival mailing list
> > >>     to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion
> > >>     list:
> > >>
> > >>    *  More info:
> > >>       https://secure-
> > >> web.cisco.com/1gGvT3G5FYK57VrPulrNDqWgIFnNxCUISnWKiGSbYV93FiR-
> > >> aUI3DTXRzujqd6sXms-JhMeQGeiL4h83UuqtTtovSVALbLVxzL-
> > >> sSNlEgmCcPPeUFK2R9kaeoXGVHXI0oTfbXXGrAluayAmaDzYqyu-
> > >> bY8ZfDoW5TQwT--
> > >> Gi421h1Mav8peZSjuJEsrNN8PoySQyzJTFqlOcboUy80ggm5_l0iYiU6bmoEFN5pDf
> > >> Q9-REZm-
> > >> HyKmuu5s_iG1oB9HOp0JGG3Znw8VxYscoJPneEsmKbfMH9rLnrq0iw3W75g-
> > >> P7Uq6iRyUwhl_Q8gzbThC/https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg
> > >> %2Fietf-announce%2Fyb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
> > >>
> > >>    *  The archive itself:
> > >>       https://secure-
> > >> web.cisco.com/1dMdiH4Ww9O4fozg6fIQm7NNVrz2FVKAwv3nf_hiHjA5SvUY1V
> > >> QexD6yblQ4hETrHjUXBEzo2N-
> > >> SdALsf7NF7ynbZOEQfzHiqSsS50ImtUQ2K_qZR8MxSC8YXrUCSiyr8RES61c-
> > >> p4G9m1mmSMa8qifaZcZxRoc0OEk9Fb6_TJun73nWBrSAaSeGRQ7mFN3qveba0t
> > >> ZRJnDLbd873bv0yO2wyE_Iw39gy9WxoqDfDywniWugsZVZ8JdfRIO8KUu-akmTi-
> > >> feWnnFSr32bqQXURBJ9hChgWadWD_fjmL8zfw6Pxuxx2dRV2PTlIk1NurDI/https%
> > >> 3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fbrowse%2Fauth48archive%2F
> > >>
> > >>    *  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,
> > >>       [email protected] 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://secure-
> > >> web.cisco.com/15cD5SQVJ0QC9wMhyG4ZfCEMC6og4GtyFRUl2Y1xGFDkWfhQc
> > >> gVHwvx1FdfvelF-
> > >> ZsY1ROjyOpdFI5ZE8sezuKzG9UNvq5CQX5EfKc4vmPumnxsldAa_gqZEeEDjG9WrH
> > >> KXm-
> > >> S9R0KPjuBiCIG5EdxLI00bzn53sOrizFWlCtFQt7rWQyZqegdh8hUT6wrn50cBz10zV
> > >> 4QG_3ciCH44xkhl3ZtjyVoH2IuFl-
> > >> 3wC69lCjwUsmDpf8HasQntep5JfnwlQPIlHzNtPeDj60K8EHXJ5nfYYzDKnaD9k1As
> > >> 6yu9Q/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9873.xml
> > >>  https://secure-
> > >> web.cisco.com/1aov7ozWUKJ1e6UvJbaH4OgFj1UEOjpa8sFyeMdG8DXzV5Uxxu7
> > >> r0ACwFZZXAooJ8EhPzi2KXC4pmmy78BOHw3I097APdKGy4_virvaP_MeQEFMkm
> > >> d672cCAmBRGZ7LpdPmZVyLslYT03-
> > >> Br94vcg2RpVyOBhrRLb4y1zHn8K0CnE7IkQizdDWQhr_w-
> > >> cQmdTuMm6mWbExRelrBSc8hSUyYyAWswM1X6mwMWpXuD9pq7k9HyLneKM
> > >> Nx87yuHq-
> > >> 6Sa8CJh8iWBMojWchMBD9lON6ytaaNAXXsyrlDY4ks7jd4/https%3A%2F%2Fww
> > >> w.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9873.html
> > >>  https://secure-
> > >> web.cisco.com/16_b4T6_KXjXOwtSaJakSbTczCe0RTR2wg6Nwl0VelEjvmXEbeT-
> > >> 4YxNhRErMKd3W1evOMpeHJLiFuU-
> > >> Lbe1pipqiRVerLBy5XUwO2LtmF5CaSZDICxYLXESmZvmeGyY8tI5Iyx9a5tKbiPCnu7
> > >> -
> > >> oRvYwP4eFpI7oSs_8pPwSrawZixeVdbzLRQ72FbpMdE7EsFsHd3neFyCIzUE2Mc5Ht
> > >> m0V4p_xWaqDiJsClOjGxWyKjxKsIwzmsY9UCXFsjkmUo37NkVFMROtQIZYe4hpER
> > >> Va3afDJAIqySgFhKgPoux4/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
> > >> editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9873.pdf
> > >>  https://secure-
> > >> web.cisco.com/17q74dIkjQHVpNQdfQWmyXQoPSxUIEpY4FkePbIB3268WY6KrQr
> > >> Hw6FMffUTXUMTD0m2Wjmsnnnh52RbiWQXbb96nCvJ8XwHSxofqXrJ3LAgVON4
> > >> 3naAJLvLBKjjS06vSVmzUfPnIOv8Wk57QjSEnZlWB23_7VAUzYt8OrIhVhDZPpKSW8
> > >> 71OCB4kF2PAjj7C_ySXHb3dgBTfOwckVWVzNbwssHvoOJAUjTXBxmyLOGusi3ycx0
> > >> qltp2JGokZ3qRVrkUH2rsiZCJ4M__cUTDzShtFH4WbYl-
> > >> Y7T729cJGlGQ/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9873.txt
> > >>
> > >> Diff file of the text:
> > >>  https://secure-web.cisco.com/1vF1CXnVPqrBUQzQUqOOruKVFpG-
> > >> O0sGXtCZYiT2PgPHkSVLGNLzZs7y8PXH3dOSaQpLHdb5IPh_er_2MLvoGGWyn8zX
> > >> d8yKJBNUaH7D6zLNm248V-
> > >> QFmDm3ilvP5wwr4SQ8o5wVdJEtvLXMingYI0WmKr575QZT9TzokKEq3n9Kyx7dtX
> > >> eXBy_LmJa5j_PxZiRyixlZ9Y9yXQC1jKmY9xSfx_XvCEnpVBAA0anCCdTi6HjBAz1PY
> > >> pF71lr9OiWBAClSNyXn0jKIJ69ZokmHmMcOiZXFOHvJUc7qU7wOcZK8/https%3A
> > >> %2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9873-diff.html
> > >>  https://secure-
> > >> web.cisco.com/1suXYshBTkNkJVTMrtcBxfUXNlWG9KQY0lsao8oq66aUVIOhtLA5i
> > >> PGvJZaYmbLnlEpeQ_-i7LgLRtGWoDchy_-
> > >> ZHyHg4CNEyAs1ZNXBFmLmVm3ebwTUlRDQ3H-
> > >> pT0I4ezGr2dNSV2UZxPcEOeFnXoH0UPyjR4TK5sa-fye7-
> > >> qP_B328TNAmmU4uwiq0ocSq82xZqIlJ4jV_Xv5mKQv0wIDcQlFydj-
> > >> FVw4HGQcHNqhxnvmPtJe7O13R1zhdbGwUOBHDTq4qLxHzJCKalDb03lJGe9w9U
> > >> HG07coX7ycIgcyU/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9873-
> > >> 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://secure-
> > >> web.cisco.com/1Vy0YPAxThzplZn_o_brqIxPoxZW5_MFoK7DMQfBEb9K-
> > >> CEIhaAQYGtbmS6cyqCyNfZ4Xg7VlnWQz4ya9E43ym93Kd2QC_FTqsi7IN7510Oatc
> > >> gBDiNrTksxYwcbFKIQRdGn86erG04CLa9Dfqc5YDuGaIdc9GcZO5dk7xAW_MegJY
> > >> kvzrQydifJVLSQt4a1qKill9tZlJ7k5O04xNo_S4ztploVGiNYYMAama5ZVjAmjmNp0
> > >> M5Dx1-
> > >> L7o73JbYZZx4u24fmqXP5qqsPUjV7DfpPVHLFdzob_scqsqVzJ3JM/https%3A%2F%2
> > >> Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9873-alt-diff.html
> > >>
> > >> Diff of the XML:
> > >>  https://secure-web.cisco.com/1RnKtMmFg3ckDhh_j3PP-
> > >> WWG5v3GhhUboraAr5dxNBF-
> > >> m40DBOQ0pIj7WXcoBsSWLJyGlah1ZRjisxJcXuJmCXijBMn7aqzNvHjz1RPqTdFgIG
> > >> nXQCpz_LIxWENC9VYJpr1eAw40kiZp5Wf9zgf5ng0JMmLNhaaFSSNjzapO7uuJbth
> > >> 3HKBRh69a4nBkZzEhvERhbBhDR-
> > >> L3UCBGVuFF6SA5cUoHiGomIFFjOZYUM09mEmZmaRC69pjOXGci8owkoToPOr4Y
> > >> nu_KZetx-_YwSfLLC-oJFhU0ko8yuM8HmINk/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
> > >> editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9873-xmldiff1.html
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Tracking progress
> > >> -----------------
> > >>
> > >> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
> > >>  https://secure-
> > >> web.cisco.com/1F3mmFN6jW2rMOmMHTNhUXaDWBFn0lFosMJGtrpiJYQtPcez
> > >> OJDQKPSkM7NupCQ1RVWSOng81kXXsATb8xcqGIJz6CE99tywd6mAbKgC6ercJFrt
> > >> bL6Fo549k1zRlj5fHNYlNI8dAL8Rwnwfg17SEz-
> > >> oR3i_t2Rh4gkwz20YL8BViQoBj76fUBwtnnfzbxAzrV4f8ZJFkDA0wOOyZNtNfbq0dt
> > >> E6FO70tqtwoqTRbgTMGonmtucP0n-ltzn-M44vVUGR3KNGwaT1dI5ek-
> > >> Lbj7Bth9Az-BXgJ4QL1wF_Agjk/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
> > >> editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9873
> > >>
> > >> Please let us know if you have any questions.
> > >>
> > >> Thank you for your cooperation,
> > >>
> > >> RFC Editor
> > >>
> > >> --------------------------------------
> > >> RFC9873 (draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-27)
> > >>
> > >> Title            : Additional Email Address Extension for the Extensible 
> > >> Provisioning
> > >> Protocol (EPP)
> > >> Author(s)        : D. Belyavsky, J. Gould, S. Hollenbeck
> > >> WG Chair(s)      : James Galvin, Antoin Verschuren, Jorge Cano
> > >> Area Director(s) : Andy Newton, Orie Steele
> > >
> >
>


-- 
SY, Dmitry Belyavsky

-- 
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to