Hi Megan, I approve the change. Thanks.
> On May 11, 2026, at 11:42 PM, Megan Ferguson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Authors (and *Mahesh), > > [*Mahesh - did the pointer Russ sent help you out? Let us know if you need > anything else on this.] > > Thank you for your replies. We have updated as requested and reposted the > files. > > A further question that came up when removing the added figure numbering: > should <artwork> throughout the document actually be in <sourcecode> with > type=x509? See > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types for more > information. > > 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) > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9977-lastdiff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9977-lastrfcdiff.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 11, 2026, at 8:08 AM, Oliver Gasser <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Dear Megan, >> >> On 5/8/26 7:47 PM, Megan Ferguson wrote: >>> 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. >> >> We've confirmed among the four authors that we will go with option b) >> without any other changes to the text. >> >>> 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 >>>> >> > Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
