> On May 6, 2026, at 4:38 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > 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. > -->
Your suggestion looks fine to me. > 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. > --> s/this applies/the specifications apply/ > 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. > > --> I think a) reads well, but my co-authors ought to weigh in on this one. > 4) <!--[rfced] Please confirm that the Implementation Status section > should remain in the document for publication (see RFC 7942). --> My co-authors need to weigh in on this one. > 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. > > --> Yes, you have understood correctly. > 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>. > > --> No concerns with these changes. > 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? > --> My co-authors need to weigh in on this one. > 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>. > --> My co-authors need to weigh in on this one. > 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. > > --> Yes, a) is correct. > 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. > > --> This is fine with me, but my co-authors ought to weigh in os well. > 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. > > --> Nothing jumps out at me. Russ -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
