Hello folks,
Since we have now received this reply from Remy, I think we are all set
to proceed with publication. I also think it is agreed that we will
keep the list of authors as it is currently.
I don't know if any changes are needed to Remy's contact information.
If there are any such changes, I hope that we get the information right
away.
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 10/14/2025 2:24 AM, Liubing (Remy) wrote:
Dear all,
I am sorry for this really late reply. Just got my mail-out-sending
authority back.
Thanks to Ines for recognizing my historical contributions.
I am okay with the suggested changes from the editors. I approve this
RFC for publication.
My sincere thanks to the RFC team for their effort in publishing this
draft.
Remy
*发件人:*Ines Robles <[email protected]>
*发送时间:*2025年10月14日16:57
*收件人:*Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]>
*抄送:*Kaelin Foody <[email protected]>; Charles Perkins
<[email protected]>; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; Liubing (Remy)
<[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
*主题:*Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9854 <draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-20> for your
review
Dear all,
Based on the history, Bing (Remy) Liu joined version 03 of this IETF
draft in 2018. We are not familiar with his specific contributions
from 2018 up to the latest versions of the document (2025). We
received feedback from Liu on the IPR topic on 30 May 2023, during the
year of the first IESG submission (draft version 18). After that, the
draft was improved based on reviewers’ comments, but the main idea had
already been established in the first IESG submission, during which we
understand Liu was active.
Therefore, we would go with option 3 (“A stream manager can approve
the document in place of the unavailable author”). However, we would
like all the authors to discuss this among themselves and provide us
with a single, unified answer (so far, we have option 2 and option 3
from different authors).
Thus, please, Charlie, Anand, and Satish, let us know your unified
answer *by 21 October*.
Thank you very much in advance,
Ines and Aris
On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 9:26 AM Ketan Talaulikar
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Charles/co-authors, Ines, Aris,
Could you please recommend which of the 3 options indicated by
Kaelin are most appropriate in this case of this document?
Thanks,
Ketan
On Wed, Oct 8, 2025 at 2:08 AM Kaelin Foody
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Charlie, all,
Thank you for your response and for reaching out.
> We have made good efforts to contact Remy Liubing and he has
not responded. It has been over a month. I would like to
proceed forward with publication of RFC9854.
Per the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/#missingauthor),
we recommend one of the following paths forward:
1. The author can be removed as an author and moved to the
Acknowledgements section.
2. The author can be removed as an author and moved to the
Contributors section.
3. A stream manager can approve the document in place of the
unavailable author.
(See the IESG Statement on AUTH48 State.)
Option 3 is typically used in instances where the missing
author made significant contributions to the document, so
the other authors are not comfortable removing the individual
from the author list.
Please review and let us know how you’d prefer to proceed. If
you have an alternative solution, please feel free to let us know.
Thank you,
Kaelin Foody
RFC Production Center
> On Oct 7, 2025, at 2:20 PM, Charles Perkins
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> We have made good efforts to contact Remy Liubing and he has
not responded. It has been over a month. I would like to
proceed forward with publication of RFC9854. We have
fulfilled all of the requests from the RFC Editors team; many
thanks for their improvements and suggestions, in particular
Kaelin Foody.
>
> Please let me know how I should proceed to facilitate the
publication of RFC9854.
>
> Regards,
> Charlie P.
>
> On 9/1/2025 10:19 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>
>> Updated 2025/09/01
>>
>> 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
>>
>> * [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://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,
>> [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://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9854.xml
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9854.html
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9854.pdf
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9854.txt
>>
>> Diff file of the text:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9854-diff.html
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9854-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/rfc9854-alt-diff.html
>>
>> Diff of the XML:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9854-xmldiff1.html
>>
>>
>> Tracking progress
>> -----------------
>>
>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9854
>>
>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>>
>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>>
>> RFC Editor
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> RFC9854 (draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-20)
>>
>> Title : Supporting Asymmetric Links in Low Power Networks:
AODV-RPL
>> Author(s) : C. Perkins, S.V.R. Anand, S. Anamalamudi, B. Liu
>> WG Chair(s) : Ines Robles, Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis
>>
>> Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter
Van de Velde
>>
>>
>>
>
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
