Authors, While reviewing this document during Final Review, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file.
1. FYI, we udpated the abbreviated title (which appears in the running header of the PDF) as follows to make it more readable. We can disregard the warning from xml2rfc about it being over 40 characters because it fits just fine in the header. Original: Zeroconf Mcast Addr Alloc Prblm Statemnt Current: Zeroconf Multicast Addr Alloc Problem Statement 2. Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. 3. To confirm, does "AV" stand for audio-visual here? Original: industrial automation, small-scale AV systems, or ad hoc sensor networks 4. FYI, this sentence has been updated to clarify what "its organization" refers to. Please review. Original: However, some aspects of its current organization need to be improved to ensure that a zeroconf multicast address assignment solution can coexist with other IPv6 multicast address assignment protocols. Current: However, some aspects of the organization in [RFC3307] need to be improved to ensure that a zeroconf multicast address assignment solution can coexist with other IPv6 multicast address assignment protocols. 5. We updated as follows because it seems REQ-8 was intended here. Please review. Original: Solutions derived from these requirements SHALL include measures for collision detection and conflict resolution [REQ-7], and SHOULD ... Current: Solutions derived from these requirements SHALL include measures for collision detection and conflict resolution [REQ-8], and SHOULD ... 6. Regarding [US6690667B1], we found the following URL for this patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6690667B1/en. Would you like to add this URL to the reference? 7. 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. Alice Russo RFC Production Center On Jul 16, 2026, [email protected] wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** RFC Author(s): -------------- Final Review for RFC-to-be 10019 <draft-ietf-pim-zeroconf-mcast-addr-alloc-ps> Your document is now available for Final Review (previously 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; see the Unavailable Authors section (https://authors.ietf.org/rfc-publication-process#unavailable-authors). 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 an archival mailing list to preserve discussion about the document while in the RPC editorial queue; 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/rfc10019.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10019.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10019.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10019.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10019-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10019-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10019-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- Details on the status of your Final Review are here: https://queue.rfc-editor.org/final-review/rfc10019/ Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC 10019 (draft-ietf-pim-zeroconf-mcast-addr-alloc-ps) Title : Zeroconf Multicast Address Allocation Problem Statement and Requirements Author(s) : N. Karstens, D. Farinacci, M. McBride WG Chair(s) : Stig Venaas, Mike McBride Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, Ketan Talaulikar, Gunter Van de Velde -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
