Hi Mike, Thank you for your review. We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page (https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9876).
We now have all necessary approvals and will move this document forward in the publication process. Thank you to everyone for your time! Best regards, Karen Moore RFC Production Center > On Nov 3, 2025, at 11:31 AM, Mike Bishop <[email protected]> wrote: > > Okay, thanks for the context. Approved.From: Thomas Fossati > <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 12:34 PM > To: Mike Bishop <[email protected]> > Cc: Karen Moore <[email protected]>; [email protected] > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; > [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9876 <draft-ietf-core-cf-reg-update-09> > for your review > 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]
