All, We have noted Tommy’s and Nick’s approvals. With these, we have now received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9872
Thank you for your attention and guidance during the AUTH48 process. We will move this document forward in the publication process at this time. Best Regards, Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On Sep 30, 2025, at 6:39 AM, Nick Buraglio <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Thanks all. I approve the text. > > nb > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 20:46 Tommy Jensen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Alanna, > > Thank you and everyone else for all the final stages work on this! > > I approve the updated text. > > Thanks, > Tommy > > 2025-09-30T00:07:43Z Alanna Paloma <[email protected]>: > > > Hi Jen, > > > > Thank you for your approval. It has been noted on the AUTH48 status page: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9872 > > > > Once we receive approvals from Nick and Tommy, we will move this document > > forward in the publication process. > > > > Best regards, > > Alanna Paloma > > RFC Production Center > > > >> On Sep 29, 2025, at 4:48 PM, Jen Linkova <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Alanna, > >> > >> Thank you very much for making those changes. > >> I approve the updated text. > >> > >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 4:55 AM Alanna Paloma > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Jen, > >>> > >>> Thank you for sending those additional changes. We have updated the files > >>> accordingly. > >>> > >>> FYI - Per your request to add a citation to RFC 6146, we have added a > >>> reference entry for it in the Informative References section. > >>> > >>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872.xml > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872.txt > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872.html > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872.pdf > >>> > >>> The relevant diff files have been posted here: > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872-diff.html (comprehensive diff) > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 > >>> changes) > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 > >>> changes side by side) > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872-lastdiff.html (last version to > >>> this one) > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff > >>> between last version and this) > >>> > >>> We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status page > >>> 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/rfc9872 > >>> > >>> Thank you, > >>> Alanna Paloma > >>> RFC Production Center > >>> > >>>> On Sep 26, 2025, at 5:22 PM, Jen Linkova <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Alanna, > >>>> > >>>> Sorry for the delayed response, we (the authors) discussed the changes > >>>> and have a few more comments: > >>>> > >>>> 1) The short title update from " > >>>> Original: > >>>> Prefer RFC8781 > >>>> > >>>> Current: > >>>> IPv6 Prefix Discovery > >>>> > >>>> IMHO “IPv6 Prefix” sounds confusing and a bit meaningless. Also, the > >>>> proposed mechanism can be used in dual-stack networks, strictly > >>>> speaking. > >>>> Therefore we'd like to suggest: > >>>> NEW: > >>>> “NAT64 Prefix Discovery”. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 2) > >>>> CURRENT: > >>>> PREF64: Pref64::/n or NAT64 prefix. An IPv6 prefix used for IPv6 > >>>> address synthesis and for network addresses and protocols translation > >>>> from IPv6 clients to IPv4 servers using the algorithm defined in > >>>> [RFC6052]. > >>>> > >>>> PREF64 definition saying “from IPv6 clients to IPv4 servers” isn’t > >>>> strictly accurate, and the double use of addresses felt awkward > >>>> compared to the straightforward definition in 8781: “An IPv6 prefix > >>>> used for IPv6 address synthesis [RFC6146].” We should reuse the 8781 > >>>> definition, especially given the close relationship between this draft > >>>> and 8781. > >>>> So we are proposing: > >>>> NEW: > >>>> PREF64: Pref64::/n or NAT64 prefix. An IPv6 prefix used for IPv6 > >>>> address synthesis [RFC6146]. > >>>> > >>>> 3) ORIGINAL: > >>>> Fundamentally, the presence of the NAT64 and the exact value of the > >>>> prefix used for the translation are network-specific attributes. > >>>> > >>>> Your comment was: " > >>>> As "are network-specific attributes" seems to directly describe "NAT64 > >>>> and the exact values" rather than their presence, may we remove "the > >>>> presence of" from this sentence?", > >>>> > >>>> so the text was changed to > >>>> CURRENT: > >>>> "Fundamentally, the NAT64 function and the exact value of the prefix > >>>> used for the translation are network-specific attributes." > >>>> > >>>> However I'd disagree with a statement that "network-specific > >>>> attributes" seems to directly describe "NAT64 and the exact values" > >>>> rather than their presence“. > >>>> > >>>> It’s exactly the presence (or lack of thereof) which the device needs > >>>> to detect, and if there is NAT64 - then the specific prefix value. > >>>> > >>>> So I’d either keep the original, or propose > >>>> NEW: > >>>> The presence or absence of NAT64 functionality, as well as its > >>>> associated prefix (if present), are network-dependent attributes. > >>>> > >>>> Thank you! > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 5:36 AM Alanna Paloma > >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Nick, > >>>>> > >>>>> Thank you for your reply. We have updated as requested. > >>>>> > >>>>> FYI - Per your response to query 11, we have made additional updates > >>>>> throughout the document to clarify the usage of RFC citation tags. See > >>>>> these updates in the files below. > >>>>> > >>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): > >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872.xml > >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872.txt > >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872.html > >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872.pdf > >>>>> > >>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here: > >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872-diff.html (comprehensive > >>>>> diff) > >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 > >>>>> changes) > >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872-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/rfc9872 > >>>>> > >>>>> Thank you, > >>>>> Alanna Paloma > >>>>> RFC Production Center > >>>>> > >>>>>> … > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Cheers, Jen Linkova > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Cheers, Jen Linkova -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
