All, *AD - please review and approve the updates to the “Example” Appendix addressing the following update from Russ: > I found an error in the example in the appendix. There is a typo in the > content type object identifier. it is using 1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1.47; it > should be 1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1.57.
Thank you for your replies and guidance. We have updated the document as requested thus far. Please note that we made a few slight tweaks, so be sure to review carefully and let us know if any further changes are necessary. (Russ - note that the Appendix now has figure numbering - please let me know if you’d like us to strip them out again, add a title to them, or leave them as they currently appear). We had two further questions: 1) With regard to question 3, we see some differing opinions in your responses: >>> 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,.. Randy: common term, ok >>> 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. >>> —> >> >> Oliver: Option b) reads better to me. Russ: I think a) reads well, but my co-authors ought to weigh in on this one. Randy: i do not see value in the added text. the whole document describes things which should be taken into account [rfced] Apologies if our question was unclear. Our main issue with the text is that "sub-prefixes entries” seems problematic with them both being plural and wanted to confirm this was not a possessive relationship missing an apostrophe or something. We suggested (b) simply because the relative pronoun “which” was carrying a heavy load for the reader (all of the text before it). However, Randy’s comment seems to imply that even the original text might not need the text after the comma. Please confer amongst yourselves and let us know what you decide. 2) Looking at the following text: Original: At the time of publishing this document, the registry data published by ARIN are not the same RPSL as that of the other registries (see [RFC7485] for a survey of the WHOIS Tower of Babel);… We don’t see mention of the exact phrase "WHOIS Tower of Babel" in RFC 7485. The only mention of that exact phrasing we see in the RFC Series is in RFC 9632. Please confirm that the citation and/or the text surrounding it appears as intended. The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9977.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9977.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9977.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9977.xml The diff files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9977-diff.html (comprehensive) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9977-rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9977-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 only) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9977-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9977 Thank you. Megan Ferguson RFC Production Center > On May 8, 2026, at 4:25 AM, Oliver Gasser <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi all, > > On 5/6/26 10:38 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> 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. >> --> > > Either of the fixes proposed by Russ and Randy read well to me. > >> 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. >> --> > > Option b) reads better to me. > > >> 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? >> --> > > Yes, that's the appropriate URL. Given that the URL contains descriptions for > both the intetnum: and inetnum6: DB class, I suggest to update the text as > follows: > > Original: > > The reader may find [INETNUM] and [INET6NUM] informative, and certainly more > verbose, descriptions of the inetnum: database classes. > > New: > > The reader may find [DBOBJECTS] informative, and certainly more verbose, > descriptions of the inetnum: and inet6num: database classes. > > > [DBOBJECTS] should then replace [INET6NUM] and [INETNUM] in the 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>. >> --> > > > >> 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. >> --> > > Fine by me as well. > > > Cheers, > > Oliver > >> 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]
