Hi Dimitry,

To approve, just reply that you approve :) 

Thank you,
Sarah Tarrant
RFC Production Center

> On Oct 5, 2025, at 10:14 AM, Dmitry Belyavsky <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> How do I approve the RFC as the author?
> 
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2025 at 3:20 PM Sarah Tarrant
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Orie,
>> 
>> Thank you for the approval! It's been noted at: 
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9873
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> Sarah Tarrant
>> RFC Production Center
>> 
>>> On Oct 1, 2025, at 8:16 AM, Orie <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I approve these changes.
>>> 
>>> OS
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Oct 1, 2025 at 8:08 AM Sarah Tarrant 
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Hi Scott and *Orie,
>>> 
>>> *AD Orie - Could you please verify that the following update to BCP14 
>>> language is approved?
>>> 
>>> "employ" updated to "MUST employ" (parallel structure with "MUST NOT 
>>> depend") in:
>>> 
>>> Original:
>>>  The XML namespace prefix "addlEmail" is used for the namespace
>>>  "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:addlEmail-1.0", but implementations MUST
>>>  NOT depend on it and instead employ a proper namespace-aware XML
>>>  parser and serializer to interpret and output the XML documents.
>>> 
>>> Current:
>>>  The XML namespace prefix "addlEmail" is used for the namespace
>>>  "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:addlEmail-1.0", but implementations MUST
>>>  NOT depend on it and instead MUST employ a proper namespace-aware
>>>  XML parser and serializer to interpret and output the XML documents.
>>> 
>>> Also viewable at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9873-auth48diff.html
>>> ----
>>> 
>>> Scott - Thank you for your reply. We have updated accordingly and have no 
>>> further questions.
>>> 
>>> Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not 
>>> make changes once it has been published as an RFC.  Contact us with any 
>>> further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form.  
>>> We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the 
>>> publication process.
>>> 
>>> The updated files have been posted here (please refresh):
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9873.txt
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9873.pdf
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9873.html
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9873.xml
>>> 
>>> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh):
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9873-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9873-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes 
>>> only)
>>> 
>>> Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the 
>>> most recent version.
>>> 
>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9873
>>> 
>>> Thank you,
>>> Sarah Tarrant
>>> RFC Production Center
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Sep 25, 2025, at 7:19 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott 
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2025 8:18 PM
>>>>> To: [email protected]; Gould, James <[email protected]>; Hollenbeck,
>>>>> Scott <[email protected]>
>>>>> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; 
>>>>> [email protected];
>>>>> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
>>>>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9873 
>>>>> <draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-27>
>>>>> for your review
>>>>> 
>>>>> Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not 
>>>>> click links
>>>>> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content 
>>>>> is
>>>>> safe.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Authors,
>>>>> 
>>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary)
>>>>> the following questions, which are also in the source file.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in 
>>>>> the title)
>>>>> for use on https://secure-
>>>>> web.cisco.com/1ZsR3tGYN7sGtmWyn9l95Z7TcV61KEXYrZeD_Mpd713QOiokMKt
>>>>> mX-DTM9CMYXKJTnWO2JMly51l2wU5UiVy29IY8elM6XJQB6r-
>>>>> qOcS0EFbqisRIwH1gJ62BjM6ddzDPy5eRGJb2fxYehs3pt1-UZMvSKWzD-
>>>>> JdACt2khJb5zW3oXNOfGhGvuNQBtKIfwCZ9FIEuSfmtsusZcvlPeujOupeOro2fm4D
>>>>> w3M6Hgc7a5rPuPj4qd1Xe2_vvdNXktC8z4pyF2vdg8_gD8OF5z___rWwS90cbYIyf
>>>>> sbuGZZsvGro/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fsearch -->
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Should "employ" be updated to "MUST employ" (parallel
>>>>> structure with "MUST NOT depend")? Or is the current correct?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>  The XML namespace prefix "addlEmail" is used for the namespace
>>>>>  "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:addlEmail-1.0", but implementations MUST
>>>>>  NOT depend on it and instead employ a proper namespace-aware XML
>>>>>  parser and serializer to interpret and output the XML documents.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>  The XML namespace prefix "addlEmail" is used for the namespace
>>>>>  "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:addlEmail-1.0", but implementations MUST
>>>>>  NOT depend on it and instead MUST employ a proper namespace-aware
>>>>>  XML parser and serializer to interpret and output the XML documents.
>>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> [SAH] The proposed update is correct.
>>>> 
>>>>> 3) <!-- [rfced] This sentence is a bit hard to follow because of the many
>>>>> commas. We added parentheses rather than commas around the "defined in"
>>>>> phrases and added "to support" before "U-label" in this sentence. Please 
>>>>> let us
>>>>> know any concerns.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>  [RFC6531] extends the
>>>>>  Mailbox, Local-part and Domain ABNF rules in [RFC5321] to support
>>>>>  "UTF8-non-ascii", defined in Section 3.1 of [RFC6532], for the local-
>>>>>  part and U-label, defined in Section 2.3.2.1 of [RFC5890], for the
>>>>>  domain.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Current:
>>>>>  [RFC6531] extends the
>>>>>  Mailbox, Local-part, and Domain ABNF rules in [RFC5321] to support
>>>>>  "UTF8-non-ascii" (defined in Section 3.1 of [RFC6532]) for the local-
>>>>>  part and to support U-label (defined in Section 2.3.2.1 of [RFC5890]) 
>>>>> for the
>>>>>  domain.
>>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> [SAH] The proposed update is fine.
>>>> 
>>>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] Should "that support" here be updated to just "support"? 
>>>>> Is is
>>>>> another meaning intended?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>  *  Any address included in an extension is intended to be an
>>>>>     additional address that's associated only with the primary
>>>>>     <contact:email> address, and that support for any other additional
>>>>>     email addresses MUST explicitly describe how the additional
>>>>>     addresses are associated with the existing addresses.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>  *  Any address included in an extension is intended to be an
>>>>>     additional address that is associated only with the primary
>>>>>     <contact:email> address, and support for any other additional
>>>>>     email addresses MUST explicitly describe how the additional
>>>>>     addresses are associated with the existing addresses.
>>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> [SAH] The proposed update is fine.
>>>> 
>>>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] In the first bulleted list in Section 4.2.1, the list 
>>>>> items all begin
>>>>> with a verb except for the following one. How may we update this one to 
>>>>> create
>>>>> parallel structure?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>  *  Storage of email properties that support internationalized
>>>>>     characters.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>  *  Store email properties that support internationalized
>>>>>     characters.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Or:
>>>>>  *  Maintain storage of email properties that support internationalized
>>>>>     characters.
>>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> [SAH] I prefer "Store email properties". Please make that change.
>>>> 
>>>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] This document includes 8 figures. For each of them, the 
>>>>> text
>>>>> introducing the figure and the figure title are almost identical. We 
>>>>> suggest
>>>>> removing the intro text and keeping the figure title to avoid redundancy. 
>>>>> Let us
>>>>> know your thoughts.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Example:
>>>>> 
>>>>> The following is an example <info> contact response using the
>>>>> <addlEmail:addlEmail> extension with no alternate email address:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>       Figure 1: Example <info> Contact Response Using the
>>>>> <addlEmail:addlEmail> Extension with No Alternate Email Address
>>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> [SAH] The proposed update is fine.
>>>> 
>>>>> 7) <!-- [rfced] Should the title of Section 5.1.3 be updated from "Query
>>>>> Command"
>>>>> to just "Command" for consistency with the other titles in this section?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>    5.1.  EPP Query Commands
>>>>>      5.1.1.  EPP <check> Command
>>>>>      5.1.2.  EPP <info> Command
>>>>>      5.1.3.  EPP <transfer> Query Command
>>>>> 
>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>    5.1.  EPP Query Commands
>>>>>      5.1.1.  EPP <check> Command
>>>>>      5.1.2.  EPP <info> Command
>>>>>      5.1.3.  EPP <transfer> Command
>>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> [SAH] Please keep the text as-is. The current text is consistent with the 
>>>> core EPP RFCs and helps distinguish query commands from transform commands.
>>>> 
>>>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] How may we update "an object mapping like [RFC5733]"
>>>>> in these sentences? Is the intended meaning "an object mapping like the 
>>>>> one
>>>>> described in [RFC5733]" or something else?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>  This extension defines additional elements to extend the EPP <create>
>>>>>  command of an object mapping like [RFC5733].
>>>> 
>>>> [SAH] Please use this: "This extension defines additional elements to 
>>>> extend the EPP <create> command described in [RFC5733]."
>>>> 
>>>>>  ...
>>>>>  In addition to the EPP
>>>>>  command elements described in an object mapping like [RFC5733], the
>>>>>  command MUST contain a child <addlEmail:addlEmail> element
>>>>>  (Section 3) for the client to set an alternate email address.
>>>> 
>>>> [SAH] Please use this: "In addition to the EPP command elements described 
>>>> in [RFC5733]..."
>>>> 
>>>>>  This extension defines additional elements to extend the EPP <update>
>>>>>  command of an object mapping like [RFC5733].
>>>> 
>>>> [SAH] Please use this: "This extension defines additional elements to 
>>>> extend the EPP <update> command described in [RFC5733]."
>>>> 
>>>>>  In addition to the EPP
>>>>>  command elements described in an object mapping like [RFC5733], the
>>>>>  command MUST contain a child <addlEmail:addlEmail> element
>>>>>  (Section 3) for the client to set or unset an alternate email
>>>>>  address.
>>>>> 
>>>> [SAH] Please use this: "In addition to the EPP command elements described 
>>>> in [RFC5733]..."
>>>> 
>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>  This extension defines additional elements to extend the EPP <create>
>>>>>  command of an object mapping like the one described in [RFC5733].
>>>>>  ...
>>>>>  In addition to the EPP
>>>>>  command elements described in an object mapping
>>>>>  (like the one in [RFC5733]), the
>>>>>  command MUST contain a child <addlEmail:addlEmail> element
>>>>>  (Section 3) for the client to set an alternate email address.
>>>>>  ...
>>>>>  This extension defines additional elements to extend the EPP <update>
>>>>>  command of an object mapping like the one described in [RFC5733].
>>>>>  ...
>>>>>  In addition to the EPP
>>>>>  command elements described in an object mapping
>>>>>  (like the one in [RFC5733]), the
>>>>>  command MUST contain a child <addlEmail:addlEmail> element
>>>>>  (Section 3) for the client to set or unset an alternate email
>>>>>  address.
>>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> [SAH] See above.
>>>> 
>>>>> 9) <!-- [rfced] Should this sentence be updated to include "XML schemas"? 
>>>>> We
>>>>> ask because we see this in other RFCs (e.g., RFCs 9167, 9095, 9022).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>  This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces conforming to a
>>>>>  registry mechanism described in RFC 3688 [RFC3688].
>>>>> 
>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>  This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces and XML schemas
>>>>>  conforming to a
>>>>>  registry mechanism described in [RFC3688].
>>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, please make that change.
>>>> 
>>>>> 10) <!-- [rfced] Would including a citation for "IDNA2008" be helpful for
>>>>> readers? Perhaps to [RFC5895]? Also, how may we clarify what the 
>>>>> domain-part
>>>>> should conform to?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>  The domain-part of these SMTPUTF8 email addresses SHOULD
>>>>>  conform to IDNA2008.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>  The domain-part of these SMTPUTF8 email addresses SHOULD
>>>>>  conform to the guidelines in IDNA2008 [RFC5895].
>>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> Please cite RFC 5891. It describes the protocol for label syntax.
>>>> 
>>>>> 11) <!-- [rfced] May we revise "of the code points allowed by IDNA Rules 
>>>>> and
>>>>> Derived Property Values" in one of the following ways?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>  To reduce the risk of the use of invalid domain names in email
>>>>>  addresses, registries SHOULD validate the domain name syntax in
>>>>>  provided email addresses and validate whether the domain name
>>>>>  consists of the code points allowed by IDNA Rules and Derived
>>>>>  Property Values (https://secure-web.cisco.com/1QFzD_XnkNpfB-
>>>>> WjBVrf6PbAKJWlemKY6666-LVqc7AP5Hw8Yx4-
>>>>> PC7WNNcNf8ca5GNaoN9ZWfudjr_o_5FxHfWhm62gviz3MtWMsxwWvM0u8wQ
>>>>> yp07c5MjDVy3owwZEqpgrfLBnPf-
>>>>> 7fJ_rID3J_onz2uI49JAfv8s3LJ2eaizVJYKH1EmZPy2yTqzKb7bS2xKwggi7fTdEg8hUG
>>>>> aEhpYmt_k9MFsa4Pzzw-m8U3CvdNHBYGIb3RALPhCcCW2AUc-
>>>>> 6bMf7mF9jWYtRNDuAJwCVkVHmwvvFDrEk-
>>>>> 5q4MibRE/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fidna-tables).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>>  To reduce the risk of the use of invalid domain names in email
>>>>>  addresses, registries SHOULD validate the domain name syntax in
>>>>>  provided email addresses and validate whether the domain name
>>>>>  consists of the code points listed in the "IDNA Rules and Derived
>>>>>  Property Values" registry (https://secure-web.cisco.com/1QFzD_XnkNpfB-
>>>>> WjBVrf6PbAKJWlemKY6666-LVqc7AP5Hw8Yx4-
>>>>> PC7WNNcNf8ca5GNaoN9ZWfudjr_o_5FxHfWhm62gviz3MtWMsxwWvM0u8wQ
>>>>> yp07c5MjDVy3owwZEqpgrfLBnPf-
>>>>> 7fJ_rID3J_onz2uI49JAfv8s3LJ2eaizVJYKH1EmZPy2yTqzKb7bS2xKwggi7fTdEg8hUG
>>>>> aEhpYmt_k9MFsa4Pzzw-m8U3CvdNHBYGIb3RALPhCcCW2AUc-
>>>>> 6bMf7mF9jWYtRNDuAJwCVkVHmwvvFDrEk-
>>>>> 5q4MibRE/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fidna-tables).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Or:
>>>>>  To reduce the risk of the use of invalid domain names in email
>>>>>  addresses, registries SHOULD validate the domain name syntax in
>>>>>  provided email addresses and validate whether the domain name
>>>>>  consists of the allowed code points, i.e., those allocated in the
>>>>>  "IDNA Rules and Derived Property Values" registry
>>>>>  (https://secure-web.cisco.com/1QFzD_XnkNpfB-WjBVrf6PbAKJWlemKY6666-
>>>>> LVqc7AP5Hw8Yx4-
>>>>> PC7WNNcNf8ca5GNaoN9ZWfudjr_o_5FxHfWhm62gviz3MtWMsxwWvM0u8wQ
>>>>> yp07c5MjDVy3owwZEqpgrfLBnPf-
>>>>> 7fJ_rID3J_onz2uI49JAfv8s3LJ2eaizVJYKH1EmZPy2yTqzKb7bS2xKwggi7fTdEg8hUG
>>>>> aEhpYmt_k9MFsa4Pzzw-m8U3CvdNHBYGIb3RALPhCcCW2AUc-
>>>>> 6bMf7mF9jWYtRNDuAJwCVkVHmwvvFDrEk-
>>>>> 5q4MibRE/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fidna-tables).
>>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> [SAH] I like the first option. Please use it.
>>>> 
>>>>> 12) <!-- [rfced] Would you like the references to be alphabetized or left 
>>>>> in their
>>>>> current order?
>>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> [SAH] Alphabetized, please.
>>>> 
>>>>> 13) <!-- [rfced] We note inconsistencies in the terms below throughout 
>>>>> the text.
>>>>> Should these be uniform? If so, please let us know which form is 
>>>>> preferred.
>>>>> 
>>>>> command-response extension
>>>>> command and response extension
>>>> 
>>>> [SAH] Please use "command-response extension".
>>>> 
>>>>> local-part
>>>>> localpart
>>>> 
>>>> [SAH] Please use "local-part".
>>>> 
>>>>> ASCII alternate email address
>>>>> alternate ASCII email address
>>>> 
>>>> [SAH] Please use "alternate ASCII email address".
>>>> 
>>>>> all-ASCII
>>>>> ASCII-only
>>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> [SAH] Please use "ASCII-only".
>>>> 
>>>>> 14) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for the following
>>>>> abbreviation(s) per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide").
>>>>> Please review each expansion in the document carefully to ensure 
>>>>> correctness.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)
>>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> [SAH] That's fine.
>>>> 
>>>>> 15) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the 
>>>>> online
>>>>> Style Guide <https://secure-
>>>>> web.cisco.com/1EpIBqSv2djqdFD93a4O8wDFONc_xXs77r5iDr0IxJH8rDbwRjGoJ
>>>>> Cttj7vhViX3oclmCBN1EBVn4Cx5U39cniNr2HwK4Jtx3vPzraPFY91-kDXjPan4fiBO-
>>>>> wbUcxyruUWBvQ_g6vEc6XjiZtCnubr9ameNHduVMbuqjbj24CK38hS5D9qWtPpZ
>>>>> _POtDEVL7q3flhYzM6HphC30lVgRmEb1e_u3KTGplalMRcXxLtU60y8-
>>>>> 499SM5GeTzO_a9uMCavuMOD4EjxPB2zLIx21bzV9ypOMqI9ocH-
>>>>> KuQGo_E18/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
>>>>> editor.org%2Fstyleguide%2Fpart2%2F%23inclusive_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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> For example, please consider whether "natively" should be updated:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Original:
>>>>>  The Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) does not natively support
>>>>>  internationalized email addresses because the specifications for
>>>>>  these addresses did not exist when the EPP was developed.
>>>>> -->
>>>> 
>>>> [SAH] Please change "natively" to "inherently".
>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sarah Tarrant and Rebecca VanRheenen
>>>>> RFC Production Center
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sep 24, 2025, at 5:13 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>>>> 
>>>>> Updated 2025/09/24
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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://secure-
>>>>> web.cisco.com/1SMDEezwBs_KZJJS2lPui3tlV6zSuw5ZvQ1TnfVZbL1Qf_u63P0Ga3
>>>>> VZTkSEix5kzgiysmVi-
>>>>> IiLgRQXPaoG9L6Vhr3DKws29IBfIBcG3sz3PgP8KNnKlQrz7qRpbveCanQ6-
>>>>> 8LvlVsGgra58UI8f3rMJT7FLgH8_ud3H7_xaW-
>>>>> ucDI1QFSFApgC2SnmVB4ZmqOw7_E8XqVLYePO6VNkDDincRKqArlvlo5TQsl7uek
>>>>> Qf5rsE5eUC0NpRoZO4a-
>>>>> EivKv0B0SbDCSVoRzfzLVlUP9MblIKIkAbAs3r5dGi6fE/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
>>>>> editor.org%2Ffaq%2F).
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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://secure-
>>>>> web.cisco.com/1Bl31SM1PL4FeEsFoc62h3C3DZpYU_IynOdIK-
>>>>> SfwKLER5l3jPbClR9XUIRg_lC6t4yDqwn8Bp9AAl7LPeSgTstqXAQkg-
>>>>> P5SkVRwr9QwMWzSfNfRsBG-fWEmr_X-bmB7RqxbE7aH_rHEMVCxmwFNo-
>>>>> 4As95V9ueztFUlgBundjmgegmctF3-
>>>>> ilF07DsHDwM7rEJdJ4bw7WI6dJ2gvurt4oNgeZ7CZAbZbIgDRFYTQygl2YfQa4zzMH
>>>>> sKIv90QwAgL5VpVhD2YjbXksucJ5EyVzS27esGVQ8jqKhwNb8O94pSQI5EE_6GIb_A
>>>>> rpfDt49h/https%3A%2F%2Ftrustee.ietf.org%2Flicense-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://secure-
>>>>> web.cisco.com/12sdMCyHc7pYxvWwY3NeiV7uSCsLjOnFg7gn_PjezxAM92Fuy7J1
>>>>> _F1-vcETGHeLM2IJt-VYY6oueRl_eXCFG7W1bNgz-
>>>>> QH32qh7M0NOOf07XlQZnfba5u3HkZOi7WeechNWZGVbwd5qzUkmH9SlfLEki8f
>>>>> xa5j9AYzZ1r3VgOZXTQMzU2zYWnosLdia3j7e1dwDX6S0tStUO8cdG6aI0jAAYX1y6
>>>>> kTQY-Q0685DWZerGmpNAblDgCTsGP-
>>>>> SIbPgOdUmGOFIrLB2h0pZwXmiChyq7BfVoJJK-
>>>>> _cqcOvg41doCzNd0ZFekRt0dmpFpFuJ5/https%3A%2F%2Fauthors.ietf.org%2Frfcx
>>>>> ml-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://secure-
>>>>> web.cisco.com/1gGvT3G5FYK57VrPulrNDqWgIFnNxCUISnWKiGSbYV93FiR-
>>>>> aUI3DTXRzujqd6sXms-JhMeQGeiL4h83UuqtTtovSVALbLVxzL-
>>>>> sSNlEgmCcPPeUFK2R9kaeoXGVHXI0oTfbXXGrAluayAmaDzYqyu-
>>>>> bY8ZfDoW5TQwT--
>>>>> Gi421h1Mav8peZSjuJEsrNN8PoySQyzJTFqlOcboUy80ggm5_l0iYiU6bmoEFN5pDf
>>>>> Q9-REZm-
>>>>> HyKmuu5s_iG1oB9HOp0JGG3Znw8VxYscoJPneEsmKbfMH9rLnrq0iw3W75g-
>>>>> P7Uq6iRyUwhl_Q8gzbThC/https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg
>>>>> %2Fietf-announce%2Fyb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
>>>>> 
>>>>>   *  The archive itself:
>>>>>      https://secure-
>>>>> web.cisco.com/1dMdiH4Ww9O4fozg6fIQm7NNVrz2FVKAwv3nf_hiHjA5SvUY1V
>>>>> QexD6yblQ4hETrHjUXBEzo2N-
>>>>> SdALsf7NF7ynbZOEQfzHiqSsS50ImtUQ2K_qZR8MxSC8YXrUCSiyr8RES61c-
>>>>> p4G9m1mmSMa8qifaZcZxRoc0OEk9Fb6_TJun73nWBrSAaSeGRQ7mFN3qveba0t
>>>>> ZRJnDLbd873bv0yO2wyE_Iw39gy9WxoqDfDywniWugsZVZ8JdfRIO8KUu-akmTi-
>>>>> feWnnFSr32bqQXURBJ9hChgWadWD_fjmL8zfw6Pxuxx2dRV2PTlIk1NurDI/https%
>>>>> 3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fbrowse%2Fauth48archive%2F
>>>>> 
>>>>>   *  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://secure-
>>>>> web.cisco.com/15cD5SQVJ0QC9wMhyG4ZfCEMC6og4GtyFRUl2Y1xGFDkWfhQc
>>>>> gVHwvx1FdfvelF-
>>>>> ZsY1ROjyOpdFI5ZE8sezuKzG9UNvq5CQX5EfKc4vmPumnxsldAa_gqZEeEDjG9WrH
>>>>> KXm-
>>>>> S9R0KPjuBiCIG5EdxLI00bzn53sOrizFWlCtFQt7rWQyZqegdh8hUT6wrn50cBz10zV
>>>>> 4QG_3ciCH44xkhl3ZtjyVoH2IuFl-
>>>>> 3wC69lCjwUsmDpf8HasQntep5JfnwlQPIlHzNtPeDj60K8EHXJ5nfYYzDKnaD9k1As
>>>>> 6yu9Q/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9873.xml
>>>>> https://secure-
>>>>> web.cisco.com/1aov7ozWUKJ1e6UvJbaH4OgFj1UEOjpa8sFyeMdG8DXzV5Uxxu7
>>>>> r0ACwFZZXAooJ8EhPzi2KXC4pmmy78BOHw3I097APdKGy4_virvaP_MeQEFMkm
>>>>> d672cCAmBRGZ7LpdPmZVyLslYT03-
>>>>> Br94vcg2RpVyOBhrRLb4y1zHn8K0CnE7IkQizdDWQhr_w-
>>>>> cQmdTuMm6mWbExRelrBSc8hSUyYyAWswM1X6mwMWpXuD9pq7k9HyLneKM
>>>>> Nx87yuHq-
>>>>> 6Sa8CJh8iWBMojWchMBD9lON6ytaaNAXXsyrlDY4ks7jd4/https%3A%2F%2Fww
>>>>> w.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9873.html
>>>>> https://secure-
>>>>> web.cisco.com/16_b4T6_KXjXOwtSaJakSbTczCe0RTR2wg6Nwl0VelEjvmXEbeT-
>>>>> 4YxNhRErMKd3W1evOMpeHJLiFuU-
>>>>> Lbe1pipqiRVerLBy5XUwO2LtmF5CaSZDICxYLXESmZvmeGyY8tI5Iyx9a5tKbiPCnu7
>>>>> -
>>>>> oRvYwP4eFpI7oSs_8pPwSrawZixeVdbzLRQ72FbpMdE7EsFsHd3neFyCIzUE2Mc5Ht
>>>>> m0V4p_xWaqDiJsClOjGxWyKjxKsIwzmsY9UCXFsjkmUo37NkVFMROtQIZYe4hpER
>>>>> Va3afDJAIqySgFhKgPoux4/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
>>>>> editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9873.pdf
>>>>> https://secure-
>>>>> web.cisco.com/17q74dIkjQHVpNQdfQWmyXQoPSxUIEpY4FkePbIB3268WY6KrQr
>>>>> Hw6FMffUTXUMTD0m2Wjmsnnnh52RbiWQXbb96nCvJ8XwHSxofqXrJ3LAgVON4
>>>>> 3naAJLvLBKjjS06vSVmzUfPnIOv8Wk57QjSEnZlWB23_7VAUzYt8OrIhVhDZPpKSW8
>>>>> 71OCB4kF2PAjj7C_ySXHb3dgBTfOwckVWVzNbwssHvoOJAUjTXBxmyLOGusi3ycx0
>>>>> qltp2JGokZ3qRVrkUH2rsiZCJ4M__cUTDzShtFH4WbYl-
>>>>> Y7T729cJGlGQ/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9873.txt
>>>>> 
>>>>> Diff file of the text:
>>>>> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1vF1CXnVPqrBUQzQUqOOruKVFpG-
>>>>> O0sGXtCZYiT2PgPHkSVLGNLzZs7y8PXH3dOSaQpLHdb5IPh_er_2MLvoGGWyn8zX
>>>>> d8yKJBNUaH7D6zLNm248V-
>>>>> QFmDm3ilvP5wwr4SQ8o5wVdJEtvLXMingYI0WmKr575QZT9TzokKEq3n9Kyx7dtX
>>>>> eXBy_LmJa5j_PxZiRyixlZ9Y9yXQC1jKmY9xSfx_XvCEnpVBAA0anCCdTi6HjBAz1PY
>>>>> pF71lr9OiWBAClSNyXn0jKIJ69ZokmHmMcOiZXFOHvJUc7qU7wOcZK8/https%3A
>>>>> %2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9873-diff.html
>>>>> https://secure-
>>>>> web.cisco.com/1suXYshBTkNkJVTMrtcBxfUXNlWG9KQY0lsao8oq66aUVIOhtLA5i
>>>>> PGvJZaYmbLnlEpeQ_-i7LgLRtGWoDchy_-
>>>>> ZHyHg4CNEyAs1ZNXBFmLmVm3ebwTUlRDQ3H-
>>>>> pT0I4ezGr2dNSV2UZxPcEOeFnXoH0UPyjR4TK5sa-fye7-
>>>>> qP_B328TNAmmU4uwiq0ocSq82xZqIlJ4jV_Xv5mKQv0wIDcQlFydj-
>>>>> FVw4HGQcHNqhxnvmPtJe7O13R1zhdbGwUOBHDTq4qLxHzJCKalDb03lJGe9w9U
>>>>> HG07coX7ycIgcyU/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9873-
>>>>> rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Alt-diff of the text (allows you to more easily view changes where text 
>>>>> has been
>>>>> deleted or moved):
>>>>> https://secure-
>>>>> web.cisco.com/1Vy0YPAxThzplZn_o_brqIxPoxZW5_MFoK7DMQfBEb9K-
>>>>> CEIhaAQYGtbmS6cyqCyNfZ4Xg7VlnWQz4ya9E43ym93Kd2QC_FTqsi7IN7510Oatc
>>>>> gBDiNrTksxYwcbFKIQRdGn86erG04CLa9Dfqc5YDuGaIdc9GcZO5dk7xAW_MegJY
>>>>> kvzrQydifJVLSQt4a1qKill9tZlJ7k5O04xNo_S4ztploVGiNYYMAama5ZVjAmjmNp0
>>>>> M5Dx1-
>>>>> L7o73JbYZZx4u24fmqXP5qqsPUjV7DfpPVHLFdzob_scqsqVzJ3JM/https%3A%2F%2
>>>>> Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9873-alt-diff.html
>>>>> 
>>>>> Diff of the XML:
>>>>> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1RnKtMmFg3ckDhh_j3PP-
>>>>> WWG5v3GhhUboraAr5dxNBF-
>>>>> m40DBOQ0pIj7WXcoBsSWLJyGlah1ZRjisxJcXuJmCXijBMn7aqzNvHjz1RPqTdFgIG
>>>>> nXQCpz_LIxWENC9VYJpr1eAw40kiZp5Wf9zgf5ng0JMmLNhaaFSSNjzapO7uuJbth
>>>>> 3HKBRh69a4nBkZzEhvERhbBhDR-
>>>>> L3UCBGVuFF6SA5cUoHiGomIFFjOZYUM09mEmZmaRC69pjOXGci8owkoToPOr4Y
>>>>> nu_KZetx-_YwSfLLC-oJFhU0ko8yuM8HmINk/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
>>>>> editor.org%2Fauthors%2Frfc9873-xmldiff1.html
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Tracking progress
>>>>> -----------------
>>>>> 
>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>>>> https://secure-
>>>>> web.cisco.com/1F3mmFN6jW2rMOmMHTNhUXaDWBFn0lFosMJGtrpiJYQtPcez
>>>>> OJDQKPSkM7NupCQ1RVWSOng81kXXsATb8xcqGIJz6CE99tywd6mAbKgC6ercJFrt
>>>>> bL6Fo549k1zRlj5fHNYlNI8dAL8Rwnwfg17SEz-
>>>>> oR3i_t2Rh4gkwz20YL8BViQoBj76fUBwtnnfzbxAzrV4f8ZJFkDA0wOOyZNtNfbq0dt
>>>>> E6FO70tqtwoqTRbgTMGonmtucP0n-ltzn-M44vVUGR3KNGwaT1dI5ek-
>>>>> Lbj7Bth9Az-BXgJ4QL1wF_Agjk/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
>>>>> editor.org%2Fauth48%2Frfc9873
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>>>>> 
>>>>> RFC Editor
>>>>> 
>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>> RFC9873 (draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-27)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Title            : Additional Email Address Extension for the Extensible 
>>>>> Provisioning
>>>>> Protocol (EPP)
>>>>> Author(s)        : D. Belyavsky, J. Gould, S. Hollenbeck
>>>>> WG Chair(s)      : James Galvin, Antoin Verschuren, Jorge Cano
>>>>> Area Director(s) : Andy Newton, Orie Steele
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> SY, Dmitry Belyavsky

-- 
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to