IANA, Please make the following update to the "RPL Control Message Options” registry at <https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/rpl.xhtml#control-message-options>.
Please remove “Option” from the three items below: OLD: Value Meaning Reference 0x0B RREQ Option [RFC-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-20] 0x0C RREP Option [RFC-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-20] 0x0D ART Option [RFC-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-20] NEW: Value Meaning Reference 0x0B RREQ RFC 9854 0x0C RREP RFC 9854 0x0D ART RFC 9854 Thank you! Kaelin Foody RFC Production Center > On Oct 20, 2025, at 9:23 AM, Kaelin Foody <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Remy, all, > > Remy - Thank you for your reply! We have marked your approval on the AUTH48 > status page for this document. Please let us know if any updates should be > made to your contact information. > > The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9854 > > We have now received all necessary approvals and are ready to move this > document forward in the publication process at this time. Please reach out > with any additional questions you may have in the meantime. > > Thank you all for your time and attention during AUTH48. > > All the best, > > Kaelin Foody > RFC Production Center > > >> On Oct 15, 2025, at 11:08 AM, Charles Perkins <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> 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]
