Hi,
These changes are complete:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/gnap
thanks,
Amanda Baber
IANA Operations Manager
On Fri Apr 18 22:45:37 2025, kmo...@staff.rfc-editor.org wrote:
> Dear IANA,
>
> Please make the following updates under the "Grant Negotiation and
> Authorization Protocol (GNAP
Dear IANA,
Please make the following updates under the "Grant Negotiation and
Authorization Protocol (GNAP)” registry group
(https://www.iana.org/assignments/gnap) to match the edited document
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9767-diff.html).
1) In the "GNAP Resource Set Registration Req
Hi Fabien,
Thank you for providing your approval. We have updated the AUTH48 status page
accordingly.
We now have all necessary approvals and will ask IANA to update their
registries to match the edited document. When the updates are complete, we
will inform you.
Note that we made the follo
On 17 Apr 2025, at 14:26, Sarah Tarrant wrote:
> Stuart and Ted - We have a few followup questions/comments:
>
> A) Regarding:
>> XML comment from Ted:
>> Adding a dependent clause here obscures the meaning of the second half of
>> the compound sentence.
>
> Current:
> DNS-SD [RFC6763] also all
Hello Laurence,
We believe the request is to make “Section X of [RFCXXX]” all one clickable
link; however, that format is not currently used in the RFC series. Note that
there are 19 instances of “Section X of [RFCXXX]”, so only updating the 7
instances that were outlined in GitHub would introd
Hi Jen,
Thank you for clarifying. We’ve updated to use “prefix delegation”.
The files have been posted here (please refresh):
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762.txt
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9762.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/au
Authors,
While preparing this document for publication, please note that we made the
following updates. We would appreciate an acknowledgement from at least one
author before we continue with the publication process.
a) Figure 2: The following lines were one character beyond the 72-character
Hi Karen,
I have indeed reviewed the document and it looks good. Hopefully I'll
implement it soon (btw Justin, now gnap is in testing at ssi.gouv.fr ;-))
Cheers
Fabien
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025, 21:55 Karen Moore, wrote:
> Hi Fabien,
>
> Per your response, we believe you are currently reviewing the
Alan,
Thanks for your reply. We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page
for this document (http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9765). We now have all
approvals and will move forward with the publication process at this time.
Thank you,
RFC Editor
> On Apr 17, 2025, at 9:58 AM, Alan
Hi Trond,
No worries! I hope you enjoyed your travels.
We marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9766).
We now have all needed approvals and will begin to prepare this document for
publication.
Thank you,
RFC Editor/rv
> O
On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 6:10 PM Kaelin Foody
wrote:
> Hi Alan, Paul (as AD),
>
> Paul, this is a friendly reminder to please review and let us know if you
> approve the new text (as shown in the diff files) in:
>
> - Section 1 (updated text in paragraph 3 per the reply to #4),
> - Section 3.3.2 (
Hi Trond,
This is a friendly reminder that we have yet to hear back from you regarding
this document’s readiness for publication. Please review the edited document
and let us know if you approve.
For your convenience, we have listed the files below. Note that Tom addressed
all of our question
Hi Fabien,
Per your response, we believe you are currently reviewing the document;
however, if your review is complete and you approve the document in its current
form, please let us know.
Thanks!
RFC Editor/kc
> On Apr 16, 2025, at 5:33 PM, Fabien Imbault wrote:
>
> Hi Karen, hi Justin,
>
Hi Stuart, Ted, and *Éric,
*Éric - Please review the diffs, particularly the added text, and let us know
if all updates are approved. We recommend the -auth48diff.html as it highlights
the updates that occurred since the first files posted for AUTH48.
Stuart and Ted - Thank you for the updated
On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 4:23 AM Alanna Paloma
wrote:
> Authors - Thank you for your reply. We have updated as requested. Please not
> that there is one remaining terminology query that has not yet been addressed:
> >> b) Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used
> >> inco
Thank you for the edits and suggestions.
I'm attaching a modified xml. I applied most of your suggestions. I
removed your comments that I think are now addressed and added my
comments (prefixed with "ML:") where I thought an explanation or
another edit might be needed.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
Sarah and others,
After review of the updates, I approve the document for publication.
Regards and thanks to all
-éric
From: Sarah Tarrant
Date: Thursday, 17 April 2025 at 23:27
To: Ted Lemon , Stuart Cheshire , Eric
Vyncke (evyncke)
Cc: Chris Box , dnssd-...@ietf.org
, dnssd-cha...@ietf.or
Hi Stuart and *Éric,
Thank you for the updated files! We are still working through the updates and
will post the files for review either later today or early tomorrow.
*Éric - In the meantime, we would appreciate confirmation that you approve the
updates.
Thank you,
RFC Editor/st
> On Apr 15
Sarah,
I have reviewed the extensive updates, and they are all good making the text
clearer. Therefore, I approve this version.
Regards and thanks to all for the work done
-éric
From: Sarah Tarrant
Date: Thursday, 17 April 2025 at 23:27
To: Ted Lemon , Stuart Cheshire , Eric
Vyncke (evyncke
19 matches
Mail list logo
