Jasdip, Tom, Thank you for your replies; please see one follow-up below. The revised files are here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9877.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9877.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9877.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9877.xml
This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9877-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9877-rfcdiff.html (side by side) This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9877-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9877-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) Re: Section 1, in addition to removing 'they' as Tom requested, we've removed the comma and updated to 'features' plural. Previously, the comma indicated two independent clauses. Original: Indentation and whitespace in examples are provided only to illustrate element relationships, and are not a required feature of this specification. Current text: Indentation and whitespace in examples are provided only to illustrate element relationships and are not required features of this specification. Alternatively, please let us know if you prefer: In examples, indentation and whitespace are provided only to illustrate element relationships: neither is a required feature of this specification. We will wait to hear from you again and from your coauthors before continuing the publication process. This page shows the AUTH48 status of your document: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9877 Thank you. RFC Editor/ar On Oct 7, 2025, at 3:32 PM, Tom Harrison <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Alice, > > Thanks for your work on this document. I agree with Jasdip's > comments, and have added two other changes below. Everything else > looks fine to me. > > On Tue, Oct 07, 2025 at 03:29:38PM +0000, Jasdip Singh wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 03, 2025 at 01:28:38PM -0700, [email protected] wrote: >>> ... > > Section 1 > > OLD: > > Indentation and whitespace in examples are provided only to > illustrate element relationships, and they are not a required > feature of this specification. > > NEW: > > Indentation and whitespace in examples are provided only to > illustrate element relationships, and are not a required feature > of this specification. > > Comment: > > The "they" in OLD might be interpreted as referring to "element > relationships", rather than "indentation and whitespace". > Omitting the "they" addresses this problem. > > --- > > Section 2.3 > > OLD: > > This is the same as what the server does with the "geofeed1" > extension identifier. > > NEW: > > This is what the server does with the "geofeed1" extension > identifier. > > Comment: > > Omitting "the same as" simplifies the sentence and reads more > clearly (IMHO). > > -Tom > On Oct 7, 2025, at 8:29 AM, Jasdip Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Alice, > > Please find my comments below, marked [JS]. > > I have also reviewed the to-be-RFC's diffs from the draft, and the edits look > fine. > > Thanks, > Jasdip > > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Date: Friday, October 3, 2025 at 4:35 PM > To: Jasdip Singh <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, > [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, > [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9877 <draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-14> for > your review > > 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://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> > > > 2) <!--[rfced] Would you like to add text to explain usage of "XXXX-RIR" > and "YYYY-RIR", or is it sufficiently clear from the context? > Perhaps they are used to represent unique identifiers for two > different RIRs. (This notation is also used in RFCs 7483, 8521, and 9083.) > > [JS] No additional text is needed since this is a known convention for RDAP > examples, as you noted. > > We note "xxx/yyy" is used later (Section 6.4) for a different purpose. > > Original: > The following is an elided example of an IP network object with a > geofeed link object: > > Perhaps: > The following is an elided example of an IP network object with > a geofeed link object, where "XXXX-RIR" and "YYYY-RIR" > represent two different RIR handles: > --> > > > 3) <!--[rfced] Would you like to update "inetnum object" to "inetnum: object" > (with a colon), as the latter is used in RFC 9632 (in most instances)? > > [JS] Good catch! Yes please. > > Original: > As with geofeed references in inetnum objects (per [RFC9632]), ... > > Perhaps: > As with geofeed references in inetnum: objects (per [RFC9632]), ... > --> > > > 4) <!--[rfced] Section 6 of [RFC9632] does contain security considerations, > but Section 9 of [RFC9632] is titled "Security Considerations". > Would you like to cite that section as well? > > [JS] Yes, including section 9 as well in that sentence should be better. > > Original: > Section 6 of [RFC9632] documents several security considerations that > are equally relevant in the RDAP context. > --> > > > 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. > --> > > > Thank you. > > Alice Russo > RFC Production Center > > > On Oct 3, 2025, [email protected] wrote: > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > Updated 2025/10/03 > > 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/rfc9877.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9877.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9877.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9877.txt > > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9877-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9877-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff of the XML: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9877-xmldiff1.html > > > Tracking progress > ----------------- > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9877 > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > > -------------------------------------- > RFC9877 (draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-14) > > Title : Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Extension for > Geofeed Data > Author(s) : J. Singh, T. Harrison > WG Chair(s) : James Galvin, Antoin Verschuren, Jorge Cano > Area Director(s) : Andy Newton, Orie Steele > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
