Hi Jim, Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately, it sounds like our initial mail requesting review may not have made it to you. Please see the mail initiating AUTH48 here:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/SoTt5KQZUp0yDwtWvj_aJkZ7FGc/ Yes, the items marked “RPC” were our comments. Adam had requested your input when he replied to our questions. Adam resolved our questions and the files have been updated accordingly — you can view the current files here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9886.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9886.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9886.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9886.html Comprehensive diffs: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9886-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9886-rfcdiff.html (side by side) AUTH48 diffs: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9886-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9886-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) Please review the current files and let us know if any updates are needed or if you approve the RFC for publication. Thank you, Sandy Ginoza RFC Production Center > On Dec 15, 2025, at 10:56 AM, Jim Reid <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On 15 Dec 2025, at 18:21, Sandy Ginoza <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> In addition, Jim’s input was requested on the following items. We highlight >> them here for easy access. > > FWIW I'm not aware my input was requested once the doc got chucked over the > wall to you. > > The comments tagged RPC -- yours? -- seem to be a no-op and I have no opinion > on them. They make no material difference to the doc as far as I'm concerned. > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
