Authors,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the
following questions, which are also in the source file.
1) <!--[rfced] Please review our updates to the following to ensure we've
maintained your intended meaning:
Original:
Therefore, there are a multitude of variations of different end-site
prefix length present in the Internet.
Current:
Therefore, there are many variations of end-site prefix lengths present in the
Internet.
-->
2) <!--[rfced] Please clarify the antecedent of "this":
Original:
In all places Carrier-Grade NAT or CGN is used in this document, this
applies to proxies as well.
-->
3) <!--[rfced] We had a few questions about the following text:
Original:
Prefix length files can contain sub-prefixes entries of a parent
prefix, which needs to be taken into account when processing these
files.
a) Please confirm the use of the plural "sub-prefixes".
Perhaps:
Prefix length files can contain sub-prefix entries of a parent
prefix,..
b) Might this sentence be rephrased as:
Perhaps:
Prefix length files can contain sub-prefix entries of a parent prefix; this
needs to be taken into account when processing these files.
-->
4) <!--[rfced] Please confirm that the Implementation Status section
should remain in the document for publication (see RFC 7942). -->
5) <!--[rfced] FYI - we have cut the following text as we believe that
this is referring to updating the Reference column. If there was
some other intent (e.g., adding this document as a reference for
the entire registry), please let us know.
Original:
On publication of this document,
the [RFC-TBD] reference needs to be changed to the RFC number
assigned to this document.
and
On publication of this document,
the [RFC-TBD] reference needs to be changed to the RFC number
assigned to this document.
-->
6) <!-- [rfced] FYI: We made some formatting edits to [RIPE81]
and [RIPE181] to include the authors for those documents in the
reference entries.
Original:
[RIPE181] RIPE NCC, "Representation Of IP Routing Policies In A
Routing Registry", October 1994,
<https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-181>.
[RIPE81] RIPE NCC, "Representation Of IP Routing Policies In The
RIPE Database", February 1993,
<https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-081>.
Current:
[RIPE181] Bates, T., Gerich, E., Joncheray, L., Jouanigot, J.,
Karrenberg, D., Terpstra, M., and J. Yu, "Representation
Of IP Routing Policies In A Routing Registry", RIPE-181,
October 1994,
<https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-181>.
[RIPE81] Bates, T., Jouanigot, J., Karrenberg, D., Lothberg, P.,
and M. Terpstra, "Representation Of IP Routing Policies In
The RIPE Database", RIPE-081, February 1993,
<https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-081>.
-->
7) <!-- [rfced] Regarding reference entries [INET6NUM] and [INETNUM]:
The original URLs for [INET6NUM] and [INETNUM] point to a page with an
"Sorry, we can't seem to find the page you're looking for" error
message.
We found the following URL that seems to contain the information from
the original URLs:
https://docs.db.ripe.net/RPSL-Object-Types/Descriptions-of-Primary-Objects
Is this the appropriate URL for these references?
-->
8) <!-- [rfced] Regarding reference entry [PREFIXLEN-FINDER:] Please review.
References to GitHub
repositories require a commit hash (see:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#ref_repo). The original
date for this reference - June 2021 - does not appear in this
repositories commit history
(https://github.com/massimocandela/prefixlen-finder/commits/main/). May
we update this reference to use the most recent commit date and commit
hash?
Current:
[PREFIXLEN-FINDER]
"prefixlen-finder", June 2021,
<https://github.com/massimocandela/prefixlen-finder>.
Perhaps:
[PREFIXLEN-FINDER]
"prefixlen-finder", commit fa70e6b, 3 June 2025,
<https://github.com/massimocandela/prefixlen-finder>.
-->
9) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions/comments related to
abbreviation use throughout the document:
a) May we expand CRL as Certificate Revocation List per RFC 5280?
b) FYI - we have removed subsequent expansions of abbreviations per
the guidance at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#exp_abbrev.
-->
10) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions/comments related to terminology
used throughout the document:
a) we have used the hyphenated end-site throughout; please let us know any
objections.
-->
11) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online
Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically
result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers.
Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should
still be reviewed as a best practice.
-->
Thank you.
Megan Ferguson
RFC Production Center
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2026/05/06
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/rfc9977.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9977.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9977.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9977.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9977-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9977-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9977-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9977
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC9977 (draft-ietf-opsawg-prefix-lengths-14)
Title : Publishing End-Site Prefix Lengths
Author(s) : O. Gasser, R. Bush, M. Candela, R. Housley
WG Chair(s) : Joe Clarke, Benoît Claise
Area Director(s) : Mohamed Boucadair, Mahesh Jethanandani
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
