Authors,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary)
the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!-- [rfced] Initially, we found this text unclear because we questioned
whether the BPv7 agent was using the IANA registry to document
Administrative Record types or whether the agent was using the IANA
registry itself. We believe both may be true. Please review whether the
following possible update is accurate.
Original:
This document updates RFC 9171 to clarify that a Bundle Protocol
Version 7 agent is intended to use an IANA registry for
Administrative Record types. It also makes a code point reservations
for private and experimental use.
Perhaps:
This document updates RFC 9171 to clarify that Bundle Protocol Version 7
agents are expected to use the IANA "Bundle Administrative Record Types"
registry to identify and document Administrative Record types. This
document also designates code points for Private and Experimental Use.
-->
2) <!-- [rfced] As we believe the "earlier Bundle Protocol (BP) Version 6
(BPv6)" refers to the version specified in RFC 5050, and because the
relevant registry seems to have been created per RFC 7116, we suggest the
following update. Please review and let us know if this update is
acceptable.
Original:
The earlier Bundle Protocol (BP) Version 6 (BPv6) defined an IANA
registry for Administrative Record type code points under [IANA-BP].
Perhaps:
[RFC7116] defined an IANA registry for Administrative Record type code
points [IANA-BP] for use with the Bundle Protocol (BP)
Version 6 (BPv6) [RFC5050].
-->
3) <!-- [rfced] Does "overlapping code points" mean code points that are
used for both BPv6 and BPv7? For clarity, please consider whether the
following correctly conveys the intended meaning.
Original:
This document does not specify how BPv6 and BPv7 can interoperate for
overlapping code points or how a specific code point is to be
interpreted either similarly or differently between Bundle Protocol
versions. It is up to each individual Administrative Record type
specification to define how it relates to each BP version.
Perhaps:
This document does not specify how BPv6 and BPv7 can interoperate
when both use the same code points or how a specific code point is to be
interpreted either similarly or differently by Bundle Protocol
versions. The specification for each Administrative Record type is to
define how the Administrative Record type relates to each BP version.
-->
4) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble parsing this text. Please clarify.
Original:
Instead of using the list of types in Section 6.1 of [RFC9171], a
BPv7 administrative element SHALL interpret administrative record
type code values in accordance with the IANA "Bundle Administrative
Record Types" registry under [IANA-BP] for entries having a "Bundle
Protocol Version" of 7.
Perhaps A:
Instead of using the list of types in Section 6.1 of [RFC9171], a
BPv7 administrative element SHALL use administrative record
type code values as registered in the IANA "Bundle Administrative
Record Types" registry [IANA-BP]. BPv7 administrative elements
may use the code points marked with "7" in the Bundle Protocol
Version column.
Or perhaps B:
Instead of using the list of types in Section 6.1 of [RFC9171], a
BPv7 administrative element SHALL determine which administrative
record type code values can be used by the "7" noted in the Bundle
Protocol Version column of the IANA "Bundle Administrative Record Types"
registry [IANA-BP].
-->
5) <!-- [rfced] This is the only occurrence of BPA. May we change this to
"bundle protocol agent"?
Original:
The processing of a received administrative record ADU
does not affect the fact that the bundle itself was delivered to the
administrative element or any related BPA processing of (e.g. status
reports on) the enveloping bundle.
-->
6) <!-- [rfced] Because values 3 and 5-15 are unassigned, is it correct for
the Bundle Protocol Versions to be noted as 6,7? Does this imply that 6
and 7 must apply to future assignments of those values (i.e., 6,7 apply to
unassigned values defined by BPv6, and 7 (only) applies to all other future
assignments as values 16+ are defined for BPv7)?
>From Table 1:
| 6,7 | 3 | Unassigned | |
| 6,7 | 5 to 15 | Unassigned | |
-->
7) <!-- [rfced] Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to
be used inconsistently. May we lowercase these for consistency with RFC
9171, which seems to use lower case except when referring to the name of
the IANA registry.
Administrative Record types
administrative record type code values
Administrative Record type code points
administrative record type code
administrative record ADU
-->
8) <!-- [rfced] It appears that there is no text in the Acknowledgments
section. Would you like to add text or remove the section entirely?
-->
9) <!-- [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.
RFC Editor
On Jan 6, 2025, at 11:43 PM, [email protected] wrote:
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2025/01/06
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/rfc9713.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9713.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9713.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9713.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9713-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9713-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9713-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9713
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC9713 (draft-ietf-dtn-bpv7-admin-iana-04)
Title : Bundle Protocol Version 7 Administrative Record Types
Registry
Author(s) : B. Sipos
WG Chair(s) : Edward J. Birrane, Rick Taylor
Area Director(s) : Erik Kline, Éric Vyncke
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
