Thanks all. I approve the text. nb
On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 20:46 Tommy Jensen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Alanna, > > Thank you and everyone else for all the final stages work on this! > > I approve the updated text. > > Thanks, > Tommy > > 2025-09-30T00:07:43Z Alanna Paloma <[email protected]>: > > > Hi Jen, > > > > Thank you for your approval. It has been noted on the AUTH48 status page: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9872 > > > > Once we receive approvals from Nick and Tommy, we will move this > document forward in the publication process. > > > > Best regards, > > Alanna Paloma > > RFC Production Center > > > >> On Sep 29, 2025, at 4:48 PM, Jen Linkova <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Alanna, > >> > >> Thank you very much for making those changes. > >> I approve the updated text. > >> > >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 4:55 AM Alanna Paloma > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Jen, > >>> > >>> Thank you for sending those additional changes. We have updated the > files accordingly. > >>> > >>> FYI - Per your request to add a citation to RFC 6146, we have added a > reference entry for it in the Informative References section. > >>> > >>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872.xml > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872.txt > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872.html > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872.pdf > >>> > >>> The relevant diff files have been posted here: > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872-diff.html (comprehensive > diff) > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 > changes) > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 > changes side by side) > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872-lastdiff.html (last > version to this one) > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff > between last version and this) > >>> > >>> We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status > page prior to moving this document forward in the publication process. > >>> > >>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9872 > >>> > >>> Thank you, > >>> Alanna Paloma > >>> RFC Production Center > >>> > >>>> On Sep 26, 2025, at 5:22 PM, Jen Linkova <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Alanna, > >>>> > >>>> Sorry for the delayed response, we (the authors) discussed the changes > >>>> and have a few more comments: > >>>> > >>>> 1) The short title update from " > >>>> Original: > >>>> Prefer RFC8781 > >>>> > >>>> Current: > >>>> IPv6 Prefix Discovery > >>>> > >>>> IMHO “IPv6 Prefix” sounds confusing and a bit meaningless. Also, the > >>>> proposed mechanism can be used in dual-stack networks, strictly > >>>> speaking. > >>>> Therefore we'd like to suggest: > >>>> NEW: > >>>> “NAT64 Prefix Discovery”. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 2) > >>>> CURRENT: > >>>> PREF64: Pref64::/n or NAT64 prefix. An IPv6 prefix used for IPv6 > >>>> address synthesis and for network addresses and protocols translation > >>>> from IPv6 clients to IPv4 servers using the algorithm defined in > >>>> [RFC6052]. > >>>> > >>>> PREF64 definition saying “from IPv6 clients to IPv4 servers” isn’t > >>>> strictly accurate, and the double use of addresses felt awkward > >>>> compared to the straightforward definition in 8781: “An IPv6 prefix > >>>> used for IPv6 address synthesis [RFC6146].” We should reuse the 8781 > >>>> definition, especially given the close relationship between this draft > >>>> and 8781. > >>>> So we are proposing: > >>>> NEW: > >>>> PREF64: Pref64::/n or NAT64 prefix. An IPv6 prefix used for IPv6 > >>>> address synthesis [RFC6146]. > >>>> > >>>> 3) ORIGINAL: > >>>> Fundamentally, the presence of the NAT64 and the exact value of the > >>>> prefix used for the translation are network-specific attributes. > >>>> > >>>> Your comment was: " > >>>> As "are network-specific attributes" seems to directly describe "NAT64 > >>>> and the exact values" rather than their presence, may we remove "the > >>>> presence of" from this sentence?", > >>>> > >>>> so the text was changed to > >>>> CURRENT: > >>>> "Fundamentally, the NAT64 function and the exact value of the prefix > >>>> used for the translation are network-specific attributes." > >>>> > >>>> However I'd disagree with a statement that "network-specific > >>>> attributes" seems to directly describe "NAT64 and the exact values" > >>>> rather than their presence“. > >>>> > >>>> It’s exactly the presence (or lack of thereof) which the device needs > >>>> to detect, and if there is NAT64 - then the specific prefix value. > >>>> > >>>> So I’d either keep the original, or propose > >>>> NEW: > >>>> The presence or absence of NAT64 functionality, as well as its > >>>> associated prefix (if present), are network-dependent attributes. > >>>> > >>>> Thank you! > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 5:36 AM Alanna Paloma > >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Nick, > >>>>> > >>>>> Thank you for your reply. We have updated as requested. > >>>>> > >>>>> FYI - Per your response to query 11, we have made additional updates > throughout the document to clarify the usage of RFC citation tags. See > these updates in the files below. > >>>>> > >>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): > >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872.xml > >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872.txt > >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872.html > >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872.pdf > >>>>> > >>>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here: > >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872-diff.html (comprehensive > diff) > >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 > changes) > >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9872-auth48rfcdiff.html > (AUTH48 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 AUTH48 status > page below prior to moving this document forward in the publication process. > >>>>> > >>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9872 > >>>>> > >>>>> Thank you, > >>>>> Alanna Paloma > >>>>> RFC Production Center > >>>>> > >>>>>> … > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Cheers, Jen Linkova > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Cheers, Jen Linkova >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
