All, Thanks for your replies and status updates.
We have adopted Bob’s most recent XML file (without further edits) and have reposted everything below. We will wait to hear back from Greg regarding the outstanding issues mentioned (and have noted them on the AUTH48 status page for this document). The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957.xml The diff files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957-rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957-lastdiff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) Please review carefully as we do not make updates once the document is published as an RFC. The AUTH48 status page is available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9957 The AUTH48 cluster information is available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C350 Thank you. Megan Feguson RFC Production Center > On Apr 14, 2026, at 3:15 PM, Greg White > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, I am back from vacation, and have skimmed through the email exchange > over the past several days. > > • Regarding the “copyright issue” I sent a request for review to my legal > department mid-last-week, since they had initially requested the statement be > included. I’ve not yet gotten a response. > • Regarding URLs to CableLabs specs (that will be stable in-perpetuity), > I’ve sent a request to my publications department today. > • Regarding the ® symbol, I will update my request to legal to please > address this as well. > Thanks Bob, Elliot, and Megan for all of your work on this document! > -Greg > From: Bob Briscoe <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 at 3:09 AM > To: "Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)" <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Greg White > <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9957 <draft-briscoe-docsis-q-protection-07> > for your review > As it says, i.e. 3.1 and later major releases. > > Bob > On 13/04/2026 18:45, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) wrote: >> >> >> Hi Bob, >> Thanks. First, does that "or later" cover just 3.1 or later major releases? >> If the latter, can you confirm call interface compatibility? Regardless, >> the references URLs need to be updated. >> Eliot >> On 13.04.2026 10:34, Bob Briscoe wrote: >>> >>> >>> Eliot, >>> >>> Inclusive language (and the other ten rfced comments) were all fully dealt >>> with inside the XML that I first sent (8 Apr 26), and highlighted in the >>> covering email. >>> Since then, the rfced has deemed all but three of these eleven >>> conversations to have closed (incl inclusive language), so deleted them >>> from the XML. >>> >>> The others (as listed by the RFCED, incl DOCSIS URLs) are awaiting Greg's >>> response on behalf of CableLabs, who is back from vac today. I was just >>> making sure the copyright one was added to this list for Greg, 'cos it >>> seemed to have been omitted. I wasn't expecting or needing a reply. >>> >>> All three URLs state "DOCSIS 3.1 Version Ixx or later", where xx in each >>> case was the first version of that spec to introduce LLD. >>> >>> >>> Bob >>> On 11/04/2026 13:01, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Ok. What is left is the issue around inclusive language and the copyright >>>> issue. Both need to be taken seriously. I will address the inclusive >>>> language and one other issue in this message. See a follow-up on the >>>> copyright issue. >>>> On the use of the word "Native", because MULPI makes use of this language, >>>> and because there is a note as to why the term is used, I think it's okay >>>> in this instance, and would request no additional changes. >>>> That said, I do note two issues I would like the authors to address at >>>> this time: >>>> • the 3.1 links are broken in the references. >>>> • at least some 4.0 docs (MULPI in particular) have since issued, and >>>> they should be reviewed prior to this document's publication. It's not >>>> like CableLabs publishes a new version every day, and presumably they >>>> would appreciate us using their latest, absent good cause. >>>> I will return to the copyright issue in a separate message. >>>> Eliot >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ________________________________________________________________ >>> Bob Briscoe http://bobbriscoe.net/ > > > -- > ________________________________________________________________ > Bob Briscoe http://bobbriscoe.net/ -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
