Hi Karen,
Approved!
Thank you for all your efforts!!
Regards,
Brian
> On Mar 18, 2025, at 8:40 PM, Karen Moore <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hello Brian,
>
> We have updated our files to reflect “source-list”. Please review and let us
> know if any further changes are needed or if you approve the document in its
> current form.
>
> —FILES (please refresh)—
> The updated XML file is here:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9776.xml
>
> The updated output files are here:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9776.txt
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9776.pdf
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9776.html
>
> These diff files show all changes made during AUTH48:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9776-auth48diff.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9776-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>
> These diff files show only the changes made during the last edit round:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9776-lastdiff.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9776-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side)
>
> These diff files show all changes made to date:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9776-diff.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9776-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>
> Best regards,
> RFC Editor/kc
>
>> On Mar 18, 2025, at 7:20 AM, Brian Haberman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Karen,
>>
>>> On Mar 17, 2025, at 5:53 PM, Karen Moore <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Brian,
>>>
>>> Thank you for your review and reply. We have made the following changes:
>>>
>>> - updated 2 instances of “1 query retransmissions” to “1 query
>>> retransmission(s)”
>>
>> Looks good.
>>
>>>
>>> - updated the text to reflect “Query Message(s)”
>>
>> Looks good.
>>
>>>
>>> - updated the title of 4.1.1 from “Max Resp Code” to “Max Response Code”.
>>> Per your explanation, we felt that this would suffice; however, if you
>>> would like to add text to indicate that Max Resp Code is short for Max
>>> Response Code in that section, please provide the text and let us know
>>> where you would like to add it.
>>
>> No additional text needed.
>>
>>>
>>> - updated “filter mode” to “filter-mode” (only lowercase instances)
>>> throughout the text per your explanation. Please review to make sure the
>>> changes are correct and to check if any further updates are needed.
>>
>> Looks good.
>>
>>>
>>> Questions:
>>> 1) Please confirm if all lowercase instances of “filter mode” should be
>>> “filter-mode” in RFC-to-be 9777 for consistency.
>>
>> Yes, all instances of “filter mode” in 9777 should be “filter-mode”.
>>
>>>
>>> 2) Should all instances of “source list” be “source-list” (the parameter)
>>> in this document and RFC-to-be 9777? Please review.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>>
>>> We are almost there in terms of sorting out this terminology! Thanks for
>>> your guidance :-).
>>>
>>> —FILES (please refresh)—
>>> The updated XML file is here:
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9776.xml
>>>
>>> The updated output files are here:
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9776.txt
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9776.pdf
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9776.html
>>>
>>> These diff files show all changes made during AUTH48:
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9776-auth48diff.html
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9776-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>>>
>>> These diff files show only the changes made during the last edit round:
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9776-lastdiff.html
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9776-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side)
>>>
>>> These diff files show all changes made to date:
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9776-diff.html
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9776-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> RFC Editor/kc
>>>
>>>> On Mar 17, 2025, at 7:26 AM, Brian Haberman <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Karen,
>>>> Responses in-line...
>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 14, 2025, at 6:34 PM, Karen Moore <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Brian,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your reply. We have updated our files based on your
>>>>> responses, and we have included the terminology updates you made per the
>>>>> cluster-wide questions. We have some additional questions/clarifications.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Please let us know if you would like to add any keywords (beyond those
>>>>> in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No other keywords to add.
>>>>
>>>>> 2) FYI: In Section 6.2, we moved the artwork (both lines) over a few
>>>>> spaces to the left as the first line was over the 72-character limit. If
>>>>> any further adjustments are needed, please let us know.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ok.
>>>>
>>>>> 3) Sections 6.6.3.1 and 6.6.3.2. Should “1 query retransmissions” be “1
>>>>> query retransmission”, or is the current text correct?
>>>>>
>>>>> Current:
>>>>> The router must then immediately send a Group
>>>>> Specific Query as well as schedule [Last Member Query Count] - 1
>>>>> query retransmissions to be sent every [Last Member Query Interval]
>>>>> over [Last Member Query Time].
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The text is worded as it is since [Last Member Query Interval] could be
>>>> greater than two, resulting in multiple retransmissions. One option could
>>>> be to change “retransmissions” to “retransmission(s)” if that is clearer
>>>> from an editorial perspective. I am fine either way.
>>>>
>>>>> 4) In Section 9.2, we updated “Version 1 Report Message” to “v1 Report
>>>>> message” (same for "Version 2 Report Message” in the paragraph that
>>>>> follows) to match Table 14. If that is not correct, please let us know.
>>>>>
>>>>> Original:
>>>>> A forged Version 1 Report Message may put a router into "version 1
>>>>> members present" state for a particular group, meaning that the
>>>>> router will ignore Leave messages.
>>>>>
>>>>> Current:
>>>>> A forged v1 Report message may put a router into “v1 members
>>>>> present" state for a particular group, meaning that the router will
>>>>> ignore Leave messages.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That change is fine.
>>>>
>>>>> 5) FYI: We updated a few instances of “State-Change reports” to
>>>>> “State-Change Reports” for consistency within this doc and with RFC-to-be
>>>>> 9777.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Good.
>>>>
>>>>> 6) We updated “Max Resp Time” to “Max Response Time”. May we also update
>>>>> “Max Resp Code” to “Max Response Code” for consistency?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We used “Max Resp Code” since that is the field name in Figure 1. One
>>>> option would be to leave the field name in Figure 1 and re-word the text
>>>> in 4.1.1 to indicate that Max Resp Code is short for Max Response Code.
>>>>
>>>>> 7) We note that only three instances of “filter-mode” were updated to
>>>>> “filter mode” (Section 6.2.1). Should the hyphen be removed from any
>>>>> other instances of “filter-mode” in the text for consistency, or is
>>>>> everything as intended?
>>>>>
>>>>> Current (Section 6.2.1):
>>>>> To reduce internal state, IGMPv3 routers keep a filter mode per group
>>>>> per attached network. This filter mode is used to condense the total
>>>>> desired reception state of a group to a minimum set such that all
>>>>> systems' memberships are satisfied. This filter mode may change in
>>>>> response to the reception of particular types of Group Records or
>>>>> when certain timer conditions occur. In the following sections, we
>>>>> use the term Router Filter Mode to refer to the filter-mode of a
>>>>> particular group within a router.
>>>>
>>>> I think I am going to reverse my edits on “filter mode” and “filter-mode”.
>>>> The pseudocode in section 2 specifically names one of the parameters
>>>> “filter-mode” and that is what is being referenced throughout the text.
>>>> The same can be said for another parameter in that pseudocode
>>>> (source-list). The prose should use “filter-mode” to be consistent with
>>>> the pseudocode.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 8) We still note the following inconsistencies. Please let us know if/how
>>>>> we can make these consistent.
>>>>>
>>>>> a)
>>>>> RFC-to-be 9776:
>>>>> Query message
>>>>> the query message
>>>>> received Query Message
>>>>> received query message
>>>>>
>>>>> Query messages
>>>>> separate query messages
>>>>>
>>>>> RFC-to-be 9777:
>>>>> Query message(s)
>>>>> query message(s)
>>>>
>>>> For naming consistency, these can all be “Query Message(s)”
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> b) Source-List-Change Record (9776) vs. Source List Change Record (9777)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please use the hyphenated convention across the board.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Brian
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
