Hi Brian, Thank you for your review. We have updated the document as described below and posted the updated files here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9812.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9812.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9812.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9812.html
AUTH48 diffs: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9812-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9812-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) Comprehensive diffs: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9812-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9812-rfcdiff.html (side by side) A few notes: - We are unsure why the initial AUTH48 email was not received. Thank you for letting us know; we will track whether there are ongoing issues. - Regarding your name, if you prefer "B. E. Carpenter”, we are happy to update this document and this form moving forward. Please let us know your preference. - Regarding "I assume the IANA and RFC Editor actions will be done just before the actual publication.” — IANA has already updated the registration procedure. We are working with IANA in the background to coordinate the updates to the registry titles. I expect you prefer to delay publication of this RFC until the titles have been updated so the document can be updated accordingly. Please let me know if this assumption is incorrect. Thanks, RFC Editor/sg > On Jun 26, 2025, at 2:02 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I have read the various versions and checked the diffs, and for me this is > all good. > (I assume the IANA and RFC Editor actions will be done just before the actual > publication.) > > Other answers in line below. > > Thanks much > Brian Carpenter > > On 27-Jun-25 06:21, Sandy Ginoza wrote: >> Greetings authors, >> Please note that we await your review of RFC-to-be 9812. Please let us know >> how you would like to address the items below. >> Thank you, >> RFC Editor/sg >>> On Jun 18, 2025, at 4:38 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> Authors, >>> >>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) >>> the following questions, which are also in the XML file. >>> >>> 1) <!--[rfced] This document has been assigned a new BCP number. However, >>> it is unclear whether this document should be grouped with an existing BCP. >>> Please review the list of BCPs closely and let us know if the newly >>> assigned BCP number is correct or if it should be added to an existing BCP. >>> >>> See the complete list of BCPs here: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcps >>> --> > > There is a slight relationship with BCP 153 but I think a new BCP number > is appropriate. > >>> >>> >>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Brian, we have updated the document header as shown below >>> to match what appears in the header of the RFCs you've authored. Please >>> let us know if you prefer otherwise. >>> >>> Original: B. E. Carpenter >>> Current: B. Carpenter >>> --> > > That's fine. A bit too late to change this. > >>> >>> >>> 3) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in >>> the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> >>> >>> >>> 4) <!-- [rfced] Regarding the RFC Editor Considerations section, we would >>> like to avoid setting precedent that stream changes need to be documented >>> in RFCs. We intend to update the stream metadata for RFC 1881 as requested >>> (from "Legacy" to "IETF") and remove 'RFC Editor Considerations' (Section >>> 3) from this document, as it's not necessary to capture the metadata >>> correction within the RFC. Please let us know if you have any strong >>> objections. > > No objection from me. It's the result that counts. > >>> >>> 3. RFC Editor Considerations >>> >>> The RFC Editor is requested to update the "Stream" information for >>> [RFC1881] to "IETF" in place of "Legacy". >>> --> >>> >>> >>> 5) <!-- [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. >>> --> > > I see nothing to change. > >>> >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> RFC Editor >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jun 18, 2025, at 4:36 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> *****IMPORTANT***** >>> >>> Updated 2025/06/18 >>> >>> 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/rfc9812.xml >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9812.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9812.pdf >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9812.txt >>> >>> Diff file of the text: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9812-diff.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9812-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >>> >>> Diff of the XML: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9812-xmldiff1.html >>> >>> >>> Tracking progress >>> ----------------- >>> >>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9812 >>> >>> Please let us know if you have any questions. >>> >>> Thank you for your cooperation, >>> >>> RFC Editor >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> RFC 9812 (draft-ietf-6man-addr-assign-05) >>> >>> Title : Clarification of IPv6 Address Allocation Policy >>> Author(s) : B. Carpenter, S. Krishnan, D. Farmer >>> WG Chair(s) : Bob Hinden, Jen Linkova >>> >>> Area Director(s) : Erik Kline, Éric Vyncke >>> >>> -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
