Hi Megan,
> On Jan 26, 2026, at 12:13 PM, Megan Ferguson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Med, *Mahesh, (and IANA),
>
> Thanks for your careful reviews and replies.
>
> This message addresses mail from Mahesh, Med, and IANA (the changes requested
> by Amanda on 22 January). For your convenience, we have included links to
> the current versions of files in multiple places in this mail (but all point
> to the same files).
>
> Please review all updates carefully and let us know if further changes are
> necessary. We will await approvals from all parties (and of all actions)
> listed at the AUTH48 status page (https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9907)
> prior to moving this document forward in the publication process.
>
>
>
> Addressing Mahesh’s reply (and necessary actions):
> -------------------------------------------------
> *Mahesh - the addition of text to Section 3.9 can be viewed in the diff files
> here:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes
> only)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 side
> by side)
>
> We have also attached a screenshot of the piece in question for your
> convenience.
>
> <Screen Shot 2026-01-16 at 10.25.54 AM.png>
>
> With regard to the possible updates to the wiki page at
> https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines?, we have also
> posted a diff file to highlight the current differences between the document
> (template) and the wiki at:
>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-wiki-diff.html
>
> Some of the differences highlighted are expected and will likely remain
> (e.g., having an RFC number in brackets or marking with a double dash in the
> RFC itself vs. colored boxes), but there are some textual differences
> remaining that we believe should be resolved.
Thanks for providing the diffs. I had a few questions around them.
I notice that:
X. Security Considerations
This section is modeled after the template described in Section 3.7.1 of
[RFC9907]. [RFC-to-be draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis].
Why was this change made? Isn’t rfc8407bis been given the number 9907?
Also,
-- By default, RFC 4252, RFC 6241, RFC 8040, RFC 8446, RFC 9000, [RFC4252],
[RFC6241],
[RFC8040], [RFC8446], [RFC9000], and
-- RFC 9907 [RFCAAAA] (or future RFCs
that replace any of them) are listed as
It is not clear what is RFCAAAA? I think you meant RFC9907. Note, this is on
the wiki, so if there is a reference to RFCAAAA in the document, it is not
available on the wiki.
>
>
> Regarding this comment from Mahesh:
>>>> OLD:
>>>> "WG Web: <http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/your-wg-name/>
>>>> WG List: <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>> NEW:
>>>> "WG Web: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/your-wg-name
>>>> WG List: YOUR-WG-NAME <mailto:[email protected]>
>>
>> Shouldn’t http be changed to https above?
>
>
> [rfced] We have updated as suggested. Calling out here for author awareness.
>
>
> For the update to the instructions below:
>
>> NEW1:
>>
>> // RFC Ed: replace 'date-revision' with the module publication date <—
>> Moved “RFC Ed: here
>> // the format is (YYYY-MM-DD)
>>
>> // replace XXXX with actual RFC number and remove
>> // this note
>>
>> revision date-revision {
>> description
>> "What changed in this revision.";
>> reference
>> "RFC XXXX: <Replace With Document Title>";
>> }
>>
>> // Authors: Replace RFC IIIII with the RFC number and title. <— Made the
>> text similar to the note to the RFC Editor.
>> // of the RFC that defined the initial version of
>> // the module and remove this note
>>
>> revision date-initial {
>> description
>> "Initial version"; version.";
>> reference
>> "RFC IIII: <Replace With Document Title>";
>> }
>
>
>
> Please review our update to this text and let us know if any further changes
> are necessary.
>
> *Mahesh - please also review and approve the following updates we have
> received in the meantime:
>
> -the addition of text to the end of the Introduction
>
> -the updates captured in the "Addressing the mail exchange with IANA” part of
> this email below (the updates suggested by IANA as well as our updates to it)
> - this includes changes to Sections 4.30.3 (added text), 4.30.3.1 (added and
> changed text), 4.30.3.2 (added and changed text), 5.3 (and the
> reorganization/addition of Sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.1).
Please see below.
>
> The above are reviewable in the files below:
>
> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907.txt
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907.pdf
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907.xml
>
> The related diff files have been posted here (please refresh):
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-diff.html (comprehensive)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-rfcdiff.html (comprehensive
> side by side)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes
> to date)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48
> changes side by side)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-lastdiff.html (last version to
> this)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-lastrfcdiff.html (last version
> side by side)
>
>
> Addressing Med’s mail (all resolved issues snipped):
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>> On Jan 16, 2026, at 12:43 AM, [email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>
>>
>>>
>>> 4) For 28d:
>>>
>>>>> d) Please review the use of module/model when it appears
>>> without YANG
>>>>> and confirm that these instances appear as intended.
>>>>
>>>> [Med] Will review that separately.
>>>
>>> Please let us know if any further changes are necessary once you
>>> complete your review.
>>
>> [Med] We can update all "model" occurrences in the bullet list of 4.23.3 to
>> "module".
>>
>> Also, make a similar change in 4.23.3.1 for two occurrences.
> [rfced] Please note that we also updated an instance before the bulleted list
> in Section 4.23.3. Please review and let us know if this change should be
> reverted.
>>
>>>
>>> 5) 28(e) and 28(f) ask about quotation around terms:
>>>
>>>>> e) We note that there may be some inconsistency in the double
>>> quotes
>>>>> around statement names. For example, these terms are not
>>> quoted at
>>>>> places in the text:
>>>>>
>>>>> import statement
>>>>> include statement
>>>>> normative reference statement
>>>>> XPath statement
>>>>> extension statement
>>>>> YANG statement
>>>>> YANG extension statement
>>>>> YANG conditional statement
>>>>> reference statement
>>>>> length statement
>>>>> module tag extension statement
>>>>
>>>> [Med] Please follow the same convention as in RFC8407 for these.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, RFC 8407 has some inconsistencies here. A number
>>> of the items in the list above appear in both quotes and unquoted,
>>> with the latter being more prevalent. Other statement names like
>>> "description" and "revision" statement are majority quoted.
>>> Please let us know if one of the following options should be
>>> implemented:
>>> a) double quote all statement (and substatement?) names
>>
>> [Med] We can double quote all statements for internal consistency then and
>> also with RFC7950.
>>
>> Here is my proposal:
>>
>> "import" statement
>> "include" statement
>> normative "reference" statement
>> "XPath" statement
>> "extension" statement
>> YANG statement
>> YANG "extension" statement
>> YANG conditional statement
>> "reference" statement
>> "length" statement
>> module-tag "extension" statement
>
> [rfced] In implementing these suggestions, we had these follow up queries:
>
> -Should anydata be quoted here?
> “Added anydata to the list of statements with mandatory”.
>
> -Should any quotes be added here?
> "YANG module namespace statement" (see also namespace statement without YANG
> module before).
>
> -Should “definition” be double-quoted in the following or other instances of
> “data definition statement"?
> “...all top-level data definition statements…"
>
> -We see this use of “extensions statement”; should double quotes be used?
> “…or a “nacm:default-deny-all” extensions statement, then those…"
>
> -We assume these should not be single-quoted in the YANG example, please
> confirm.
> "Several description and pattern statements have been improved.”;"
> Pattern statements; range statement; max-elements statement; list statement;
> YANG constraint statments, and YANG deviation statement?
>
> -Please advise on how quoting should appear in the following titles (i.e.,
> should any of these be double quoted as well?):
> 4.8. Module Header, Meta, and Revision Statement (quotes only on Revision,
> correct?)
> 4.19.1. Conditional Augment Statements
> 4.19.2. Conditionally Mandatory Data Definition Statements
> 4.20. Deviation Statements
> 4.21. Extension Statements
>
> -We added quotes to “extension” statement, but that makes for back-to-back
> quotes as seen in this example (see Section 4.29 for more examples):
> “...the use of the "structure" “extension” statement...”
>
>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> f) Further, there are some similar terms that may benefit from
>>>>> quotation review. We see:
>>>>>
>>>>> when expression vs. "when" expression must expression vs.
>>> "must"
>>>>> expression
>>>
>>> [rfced] Note also that we see "when" statement and "must"
>>> statement. Should these be updated to expression?
>>
>> [Med] statement is actually more compliant with RFC7950.
>
> [rfced] We have updated from “expression” to “statement” per this guidance.
> Please review and let us know if this is in error.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>>> "deprecated" vs. "status deprecated"
>>>
>>> [rfced] We have added quotation marks where these appears to be a
>>> setting. Please advise if any changes from simply "deprecated" to
>>> instead say "status deprecated" are desired.
>>
>> [Med] The 2 uses in the doc are OK. However, when re-reading:
>>
>> CURRENT:
>> The "/interfaces-state" hierarchy has
>> been marked "status deprecated". Models that mark their "/foo-
>> state" hierarchy with "status deprecated" will allow NMDA-
>>
>> I wonder whether:
>>
>> OLD: been marked "status deprecated".
>>
>> NEW: been marked with "status deprecated”.
> [rfced] We have made this update as requested. As this was marked “I
> wonder”, please confirm this appears as desired.
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> 6) We did not see a reply to questions 29(b) and 29(c). Please
>>> let us know if any action is necessary on these items:
>>>
>>>>> b) Please review the use of quotation marks (both single quotes
>>> and
>>>>> double quotes) with these terms; specifically, should they be
>>> moved
>>>>> to outside the <tt> tag?
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, we see both:
>>>>>
>>>>> <tt>"<CODE BEGINS>"</tt> tag
>>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>> <tt><CODE BEGINS></tt> convention
>>>>>
>>>>> c) Please review to ensure the usage of <tt> is consistent. It
>>>>> appears that there may be varying treatment of these terms.
>>>
>>
>> [Med] Please use a consistent approach for all similar matters.
> [rfced] We have updated to include double quotes outside the <tt> tags for
> CODE BEGINS and CODE ENDS throughout. We have added <tt> tags and quotation
> marks around BEGIN TEMPLATE TEXT and END TEMPLATE TEXT as well. Please let
> us know any objections.
>
> The above updates (and all the updates related Med’s mail are reviewable in
> the most recent postings, again, those are viewable at:
>
> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907.txt
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907.pdf
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907.xml
>
> The related diff files have been posted here (please refresh):
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-diff.html (comprehensive)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-rfcdiff.html (comprehensive
> side by side)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes
> to date)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48
> changes side by side)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-lastdiff.html (last version to
> this)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-lastrfcdiff.html (last version
> side by side)
>
> Addressing the mail exchange with IANA:
> ---------------------------------------
>
>> RFC Editor:
>>
>> Hi! Med has asked us to coordinate four sets of changes to
>> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis with you. He approved the proposed text for
>> 4.30.3.1, 4.30.3.2, and 5.3 this morning, with a change that's been applied
>> below (s/5.3/5.3.2/), and he provided the updated 4.30.3 text in a message
>> from January 17th.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Amanda
>>
>> ==========================================
>>
>> 1) Make this change to 4.30.3:
>>
>> OLD:
>>
>> * A note that unassigned or reserved values must not be present in the
>> IANA-maintained module.
>>
>> * An instruction whether experimental values should be included in the
>> IANA-maintained module. If no instruction is provided, experimental values
>> MUST NOT be listed in the IANA-maintained module.
>>
>> * An instruction about how to generate the "revision" statement.
>>
>> NEW:
>>
>> The IANA Considerations Section MAY also provide the following information
>> if a default action is expected:
>>
>> * A note whether unassigned or reserved values should be present in
>> the IANA-maintained module. If no instruction is provided,
>> unassigned or reserved values must not be present in
>> the IANA-maintained module.
>>
>> * An instruction whether experimental values should be included in
>> the IANA-maintained module. If no instruction is provided,
>> experimental values MUST NOT be listed in the IANA-maintained
>> module.
>>
>> * An instruction about how to generate the "revision" statement.
>> If not present, default actions provided in Section 5.3 will be followed.
>
> [rfced] Note that we updated the last bullet point to read as “If no
> instruction is provided” instead of “If not present” to be consistent with
> the two previous points. Please let us know any objections.
I am having problems matching the NEW section in the updated draft. In
particular, I seem to be missing the first sentence that says “The IANA
Consideration Section MAY …”.
Moreover, at the begining of the Section 4.30.3 says "Concretely, the IANA
Considerations section SHALL at least provide the following information:” The
change to SHALL from MAY seems to be new and needs to be approved by the WG.
>>
>> ==========================================
>>
>> 2) Update Section 4.30.3.1 to read as follows:
>>
>> 4.30.3.1. Template for IANA-Maintained Modules with Identities
>>
>> This template ends with a section labeled "OPTIONAL." Any text in this
>> section that needs to be customized should be included in the template. Text
>> that does not require customization should be omitted.
>>
>> <CODE BEGINS>
>>
>> This document defines the initial version of the IANA-maintained
>> "iana-foo" YANG module. The most recent version of the YANG module
>> is available from the "YANG Parameters" registry group
>> [IANA-YANG-PARAMETERS].
>>
>> IANA is requested to add this note to the registry:
>>
>> New values must not be directly added to the "iana-foo" YANG
>> module. They must instead be added to the "foo" registry.
>>
>> IANA is requested to add this note to [reference-to-the-iana-foo-
>> registry]:
>>
>> When this registry is modified, the YANG module "iana-foo"
>> [IANA_FOO_URL] must be updated as defined in RFC IIII.
>>
>> When a value is added to the "foo" registry, a new "identity"
>> statement needs to be added to the "iana-foo" YANG module. The name
>> of the "identity" MUST be the name as provided in the registry.
>> The "identity" statement should have the following
>> sub-statements defined:
>>
>> "base": Contains 'name-base-identity-defined-in-foo'.
>>
>> "status": Include only if a registration has been deprecated or
>> obsoleted. IANA "deprecated" maps to YANG status
>> "deprecated", and IANA "obsolete" maps to YANG status
>> "obsolete".
>>
>> "description": Replicates the description from the registry.
>>
>> "reference": Replicates the reference(s) from the registry.
>> References to documents should also include titles.
>>
>> -- OPTIONAL:
>>
>> -- Include only text that needs to be customized for the module.
>> -- Text that does not require customization should be
>> -- omitted.
>>
>> -- Notes tagged with "--" include instructions for authors. These notes
>> -- must not be copied.
>>
>> Unassigned and Reserved Values:
>>
>> -- To be completed only if unassigned and/or reserved values
>> -- (which may include experimental values) should be included
>> -- in the module. These values are typically not included.
>>
>> Description Substatements:
>>
>> -- To be completed only if the default actions described in
>> -- Section 5.3.2 are to be overridden.
>> -- Specify whether instructions apply to "revision" statements, "identity"
>> statements, or both.
>>
>> Reference Substatements:
>>
>> -- To be completed only if the default actions described in
>> -- Section 5.3.2 are to be overridden.
>> -- Specify whether instructions apply to "revision" statements, "identity"
>> statements, or both.
>>
>> Naming Considerations:
>>
>> -- If a name in the IANA registry does not comply with the
>> -- YANG naming conventions, add details how IANA can generate
>> -- legal identifiers. For example, if the name begins with
>> -- a number, indicate a preference to spell out the number when
>> -- used as an identifier.
>>
>> <CODE ENDS>
>
> [rfced] We made a slight further update to use “Section 5.3.2 of RFC 9907” in
> the text under both “Description Substatements” and “Reference
> Substatements”. We also updated the introductory text to more closely match
> the text proposed for Section 4.30.3.2 (below). Please review and let us
> know any concerns.
These changes are significant and are beyond editorial changes. For example:
The previous version of this section had a paragraph on:
When the "iana-foo" YANG module is updated, a new "revision"
statement with a unique revision date must be added in front of the
existing "revision" statements. The "revision" statement MUST
contain both "description" and "reference" substatements as follows.
Where is that covered now? I see some instructions in Section 5.3 and 5.3.1,
but I am not sure it is the same.
The same is true for the description sub statement.
Also, this text seems to be a repeat of what is mentioned in the begining of
Section 4.30.3.2. One of them should be removed.
-- Include only text that needs to be customized for the module.
-- Text that does not require customization should be
-- omitted.
Thanks
>>
>> ==========================================
>>
>> 3) Update Section 4.30.3.2 to read as follows (same text as above, aside
>> from references to enums instead of identities):
>>
>> 4.30.3.2. Template for IANA-Maintained Modules with Enumerations
>>
>> This template ends with a section labeled "OPTIONAL." Any text in this
>> section that needs to be customized should be included in the template. Text
>> that does not require customization should be omitted from the IANA
>> Considerations.
>>
>> <CODE BEGINS>
>>
>> This document defines the initial version of the IANA-maintained
>> "iana-foo" YANG module. The most recent version of the YANG module
>> is available from the "YANG Parameters" registry group
>> [IANA-YANG-PARAMETERS].
>>
>> IANA is requested to add this note to the registry:
>>
>> New values must not be directly added to the "iana-foo" YANG
>> module. They must instead be added to the "foo" registry.
>>
>> IANA is requested to add this note to [reference-to-the-iana-foo-
>> registry]:
>>
>> When this registry is modified, the YANG module "iana-foo"
>> [IANA_FOO_URL] must be updated as defined in RFC IIII.
>>
>> When a value is added to the "foo" registry, a new "enum" statement
>> must be added to the "iana-foo" YANG module. The "enum" statement,
>> and sub-statements thereof, should be defined:
>>
>> "enum": Replicates a name from the registry.
>>
>> "value": Contains the decimal value of the IANA-assigned
>> value.
>>
>> "status": Is included only if a registration has been
>> deprecated or obsoleted. IANA "deprecated" maps
>> to YANG status "deprecated", and IANA "obsolete"
>> maps to YANG status "obsolete".
>>
>> "description": Replicates the description from the registry.
>>
>> "reference": Replicates the reference(s) from the registry. References to
>> documents should also include titles.
>>
>> -- OPTIONAL:
>>
>> -- Include only text that needs to be customized for the module.
>> -- Text that does not require customization should be
>> -- omitted.
>>
>> -- Notes tagged with "--" include instructions for authors. These notes
>> -- must not be copied.
>>
>> Unassigned and Reserved Values:
>>
>> -- To be completed only if unassigned and/or reserved values
>> -- (which may include experimental values) should be included
>> -- in the module. These values are typically not included.
>>
>> Description Substatements:
>>
>> -- To be completed only if the default actions described in
>> -- Section 5.3.2 are to be overridden.
>> -- Specify whether instructions apply to "revision" statements, "enum"
>> statements, or both.
>>
>> Reference Substatements:
>>
>> -- To be completed only if the default actions described in
>> -- Section 5.3.2 are to be overridden.
>> -- Specify whether instructions apply to "revision" statements, "enum"
>> statements, or both.
>>
>> Naming Considerations:
>>
>> -- If a name in the IANA registry does not comply with the
>> -- YANG naming conventions, add details how IANA can generate
>> -- legal identifiers. For example, if the name begins with
>> -- a number, indicate a preference to spell out the number when
>> -- used as an identifier.
>>
>> <CODE ENDS>
> [rfced] We have made similar updates as mentioned above (added RFC 9907 to
> section mentions).
>>
>> ==========================================
>>
>> 4) Replace Section 5.3 with the following:
>>
>> 5.3. IANA-Maintained Modules
>>
>> IANA should refer to Section 4.30.3 for information necessary to populate
>> "revision" statements and "identity" and "enum" substatements in
>> IANA-maintained modules.
>>
>> These considerations cover both the creation and maintenance of an
>> IANA-maintained module, and they include both instructions applicable to all
>> IANA-maintained modules and instructions that can be customized by module
>> creators.
>>
>> 5.3.1. Requirements for All Modules
>>
>> In particular, the following instructions should apply to all modules:
>>
>> * When an underlying registration is deprecated or obsoleted, a
>> corresponding "status" substatement should be added to the identity or
>> enumeration statement.
>>
>> * The "reference" substatement in the revision statement should point
>> specifically to the published module (i.e., IANA_FOO_URL_With_REV). When the
>> registration is triggered by an RFC, that RFC must also be included in the
>> "reference" substatement. It may also point to an authoritative event
>> triggering the update to the YANG module. In all cases, the event is cited
>> from the underlying IANA registry.
>>
>> * References to documents should include titles.
>>
>> In addition, when the module is published, IANA must add the following notes
>> to:
>>
>> The YANG Module Names registry:
>> New values must not be directly added to the "iana-foo" YANG module. They
>> must instead be added to the "foo" registry.
>>
>> The underlying registry:
>> When this registry is modified, the YANG module "iana-foo" [IANA_FOO_URL]
>> must be updated as defined in RFC IIII.
>>
>> 5.3.2. Requirements Subject to Customization
>>
>> Unless the creators of an IANA-maintained module specify otherwise in their
>> document's IANA Considerations section, the following instructions will
>> apply:
>>
>> * Unassigned and reserved values (including experimental values) will be
>> omitted from the module.
>>
>> * The "reference" statement in an "identity" or "enum" substatement should
>> mirror the underlying registry. It may point to contact names as well as
>> documents.
>>
>> * In a revision statement, the "description" substatement captures what
>> changed in the
>> revised version. Typically, the description enumerates changes
>> such as updates to existing entries (e.g., update a description or
>> a reference) or notes which identities were added or had their status
>> changed (e.g., deprecated, discouraged, or obsoleted).
>>
>> When such a description is not feasible, the description varies in
>> accordance with the trigger for the update.
>>
>> If the update is triggered by an RFC, the "description" substatement should
>> include or consist of this text:
>> "Applied updates as specified by RFC XXXX."
>>
>> If the registration policy for the registry does not require RFC publication
>> (Section 4 of [RFC8126]), insert this text:
>>
>> "Applied updates as specified by the registration policy
>> <Some_IANA_policy>".
>
> [rfced] A few points:
>
> 1) Please review the following text:
>
>> * When an underlying registration is deprecated or obsoleted, a
>> corresponding "status" substatement should be added to the identity or
>> enumeration statement.
>
>
> Should double quotes be added to make this “identity” or “enumeration”
> statements (double quotes and plural statement)? We also note that
> “identity” and “enum” substatements used in the text preceding this. Please
> confirm that these should not match (i.e., the lead in text is about
> substatements and the text above is about statements).
>
> 2) We have updated to use “revision” statement (in quotes) or “description”
> etc. Please review any addition of quotation marks and let us know if these
> were general uses instead of statement names and we can revert if necessary.
>
> 3) Should the following text be in double quotes in the template? Other
> parts of the template are not quoted...
>
>> "Applied updates as specified by RFC XXXX."
>
>
>
> and
>
>> "Applied updates as specified by the registration policy
>> <Some_IANA_policy>".
>
> The incorporation of the updates requested by IANA are reviewable in the most
> recent postings, which (again) are located at:
>
> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907.txt
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907.pdf
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907.xml
>
> The related diff files have been posted here (please refresh):
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-diff.html (comprehensive)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-rfcdiff.html (comprehensive
> side by side)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes
> to date)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48
> changes side by side)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-lastdiff.html (last version to
> this)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9907-lastrfcdiff.html (last version
> side by side)
>
> Thank you.
>
> Megan Ferguson
> RFC Production Center
>
>
>
>
Mahesh Jethanandani
[email protected]
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
