Before processing by the IESG, we didn’t have reserved codepoints for examples. At the time (-07), the codepoints used in the "DE training" section were from the FCFS range. Therefore, it made sense to include the paragraph, as we wanted to clarify that these examples apply to basically every codepoint, not just those from the FCFS range. After addressing [1] and [2], we started using the codepoints reserved for examples, which makes the clarification redundant and also potentially confusing.
cheers, t [1] Med's DISCUSS "Should we formally mark 64999 as reserved for documentation?" [2] Éric’s COMMENT: "[...] Section 3.5 also uses 64900 in an example. Please request two documentation values for ID" On Mon, 3 Nov 2025 at 16:47, Mike Bishop <[email protected]> wrote: > > Can you give me the context on the removal? I would have thought that > clarification was useful. Sorry about not catching this flag sooner. > > ________________________________ > From: Karen Moore <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2025 4:10 PM > To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; > [email protected] <[email protected]>; > [email protected] <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] > <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; > [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] > <[email protected]>; Mike Bishop <[email protected]> > Subject: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9876 <draft-ietf-core-cf-reg-update-09> for > your review > > --resending with corrected email address-- > > Dear Zahed (AD), > > Please review the removal of the following text from Section 4.1.5 and let us > know if you approve. The update can be viewed in this file: > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9876-auth48diff.html>. > > Section 4.1.5 (removed text): > For each of the following example registration requests, one can > create a similar instance where the requested registration is for a > CoAP Content-Format identifier within the "IETF Review with Expert > Review or IESG Approval with Expert Review" range. Likewise, such > registrations must not be allowed to succeed. > > > —Files— > (please refresh) > > Updated XML file: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9876.xml > > Updated output files: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9876.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9876.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9876.html > > Diff files showing all changes made during AUTH48: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9876-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9876-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff files showing all changes: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9876-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9876-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9876 > > Best regards, > > Karen Moore > RFC Production Center > > > >>> On Oct 10, 2025, at 11:18 AM, Karen Moore <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Dear Esko, Thomas, and *Mike (AD), > >>> > >>> The IANA actions are complete. > >>> > >>> *Mike, please review the removal of the following text from Section 4.1.5 > >>> and let us know if you approve. The update can be viewed in this file: > >>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9876-auth48diff.html>. > >>> > >>> Section 4.1.5 (removed text): > >>> For each of the following example registration requests, one can > >>> create a similar instance where the requested registration is for a > >>> CoAP Content-Format identifier within the "IETF Review with Expert > >>> Review or IESG Approval with Expert Review" range. Likewise, such > >>> registrations must not be allowed to succeed. > >>> > >>> > >>> —Files (please refresh)— > >>> > >>> Updated XML file: > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9876.xml > >>> > >>> Updated output files: > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9876.txt > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9876.pdf > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9876.html > >>> > >>> Diff files showing all changes made during AUTH48: > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9876-auth48diff.html > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9876-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by > >>> side) > >>> > >>> Diff files showing all changes: > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9876-diff.html > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9876-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > >>> > >>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9876 > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> > >>> Karen Moore > >>> RFC Production Center > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Oct 9, 2025, at 10:49 AM, Karen Moore <[email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Oct 9, 2025, at 10:47 AM, Karen Moore <[email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Dear Thomas and Esko, > >>>> > >>>> Thank you for your replies. We have noted your approvals on the AUTH48 > >>>> status page (https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9876). > >>>> > >>>> We will now ask IANA to make updates accordingly, and we will inform you > >>>> when complete. > >>>> > >>>> Best regards, > >>>> > >>>> Karen Moore > >>>> RFC Production Center > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Oct 9, 2025, at 1:56 AM, Esko Dijk <[email protected]> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks Karen & RFC editors staff, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Also approved now for me! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> best regards > >>>>>> Esko Dijk > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Oct 8, 2025, at 6:21 PM, Thomas Fossati <[email protected]> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Karen, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 at 21:43, Karen Moore <[email protected]> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> Thank you for your comments! We have updated the document > >>>>>>> accordingly; please see the updated files below. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Please let us know if you approve the document in its current form or > >>>>>>> if any additional edits are needed. Once approvals are received, we > >>>>>>> will ask IANA to update their registry to match the edited document. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The updates accurately reflect all our previous exchanges. > >>>>>> On my part, I am happy to approve publication. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thank you very much for your excellent work on the document. > >>>>>> Alos, many thanks for choosing such an exciting number for what would > >>>>>> otherwise be a rather dull RFC :-) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> cheers, t > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
