Alanna, Looks great, thanks again!
Approved. Nate On Tue, Aug 4, 2026 at 11:08 PM Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Authors, > > Thank you for your replies. We have noted approvals from Mike and Dino on > the Final Review status page: > https://queue.rfc-editor.org/final-review/rfc10028/ > > Additionally, the files have been updated as requested. > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10028.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10028.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10028.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10028.pdf > > The relevant diff files have been posted here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10028-diff.html (comprehensive > diff) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10028-auth48diff.html (Final > Review changes) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10028-auth48rfcdiff.html (Final > Review changes side by side) > > Please review the document carefully and contact us with any further > updates you may have. Note that we do not make changes once a document is > published as an RFC. > > We will await approvals from each party listed on the Final Review status > page prior to moving this document forward in the publication process. > > Thank you, > Alanna Paloma > RFC Production Center > > > On Aug 1, 2026, at 4:06 AM, Nate Karstens <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Alanna, > > > > Thank you for your work on this! A few suggested updates: > > • > > Section: Table 2 > > OLD: Private Use > > NEW: Reserved for Private Use > > • Section: Table 2 > > OLD: Experimental Use > > NEW: Reserved for Experimental Use > > • Section: Informative References > > The date on RFC 3307 should be August, not September. Please see > discussion with Alice Russo about this at > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/32tUw1MqlBxfSsHHTg7hVJR0Pig/. > She ended up using a manual reference instead of relying on bib.ietf.org. > > For #1 and #2 in this list, this is to better align with the actual > entries in the registry > https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-multicast-addresses#dynamic-multicast-group-ids. > Alternatively, we could update the registry to match the document, or just > ignore this difference (as it's clear enough that these line up). > > > > Regarding your list of questions: > > • > > New title looks great > > • Keywords: MADCAP, architecture (from IPv6 multicast address > architecture) > > • I reviewed the document and agree there are no issues > > Cheers, > > > > Nate > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 1:09 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > Authors, > > > > While reviewing this document during Final Review, please resolve (as > necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file. > > > > 1) <!-- [rfced] Note that we have updated the short title, which appears > in the running header > > in the PDF output, as follows. > > > > Original: > > Dynamic IPv6 Mcast Addr Group ID Updates > > > > Current: > > Dynamic IPv6 Multicast Address Group ID Updates > > --> > > > > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in > > the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> > > > > > > 3) <!-- [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. > > > > Alanna Paloma > > RFC Production Center > > > > > > On Jul 31, 2026, at 11:07 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > > > RFC Author(s): > > -------------- > > > > Final Review for RFC-to-be 10028 > <draft-ietf-pim-updt-ipv6-dyn-mcast-addr-grp-id> > > > > 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/rfc10028.xml > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10028.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10028.pdf > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10028.txt > > > > Diff file of the text: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10028-diff.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10028-rfcdiff.html (side by > side) > > > > Diff of the XML: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10028-xmldiff1.html > > > > > > Tracking progress > > ----------------- > > > > Details on the status of your Final Review are here: > > https://queue.rfc-editor.org/final-review/rfc10028/ > > > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > > > RFC Editor > > > > -------------------------------------- > > RFC 10028 (draft-ietf-pim-updt-ipv6-dyn-mcast-addr-grp-id) > > > > Title : Updates to Dynamic IPv6 Multicast Address Group IDs > > 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]
