Authors,

Thank you for your replies. Please see the follow-ups below. The revised files 
are here (please refresh):
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9927.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9927.txt
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9927.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9927.xml

- Adnan, good catch; updated 2.2 to "Related Documents".

- Re: #3, <strong> has been removed, in keeping with RFC-to-be 9926.

This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9927-diff.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9927-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9927-auth48diff.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9927-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side)

We will wait to hear from you again before continuing the publication 
process. This page shows the AUTH48 status of your document:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9927

Thank you.

Alice Russo
RFC Production Center

> On Jan 27, 2026, at 3:37 AM, Adnan Rashid <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Dear RFC Editor,
> 
> ++ @Pascal Thubert comment.
> 
> I disagree with the Terminology word used twice for Sections 2 and Subsection 
> 2.2.
> 
> I would suggest changing 2.2 from Terminology into Terms and Concepts or 
> Related Documents.
> 
> The rest of the document is fine. 
> 
> 
> Thank you 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> Adnan Rashid - Ph.D.
> 
> Assistant Professor,
> Dpt. Electrical and Information 
> Engineering (DEI),
> Politecnico di Bari, 
> Via Orabona 4, 70125, Bari, Italy.
> E-mail: [email protected]
>         [email protected]
> Phone: +39-080-596-3066 
> Mobile:+39 376 262 1282
> 

> On Jan 27, 2026, at 1:55 AM, Pascal Thubert <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Dear RFC Editor
> 
> I review the 3 occurrences of [rfced] in the xml and I'm good with the 
> proposals. In particular for "strong" the best is to retain consistency with 
> RFC to be 9926.
> 
> Many thanks!
> 
> Pascal
> 
> Le mar. 27 janv. 2026 à 05:50, <[email protected]> a écrit :
> 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] Some author comments are present in the XML. Please confirm 
> that no updates related to these comments are outstanding. Note that 
> the comments will be deleted prior to publication.
> -->
> 
> 
> 3) <!-- [rfced] Regarding usage of <strong> elements in this document.        
>     
> please review the occurrences and let us know if any updates needed 
> for consistency.  
> 
> In the HTML and PDF outputs, <strong> yields bold.                            
>   
> In the text output, <strong> yields an asterisk before and after.             
>   
> 
> We suggest removing usage in this document because the asterisks
> seem to clutter the text output in Sections 2.3 and 3.
> -->
> 
> 
> 4) <!-- [rfced] FYI, regarding [IANA.ICMP.ARO.P-FIELD],
> we updated the reference's title to "P-Field Values" to match
> what seems to have been intended. Please let us know if this
> is not accurate.
> 
> Original:
>    [IANA.ICMP.ARO.P-FIELD]
>               IANA, "IANA Registry for the Address Registration Option
>               Status Value", IANA, https://www.iana.org/assignments/
>               icmpv6-parameters/icmpv6-parameters.xhtml#p-field-values.
> 
> Current:
>    [IANA.ICMP.ARO.P-FIELD]
>               IANA, "P-Field Values",
>               <https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters>.
> -->    
> 
> 
> 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
> 

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

Reply via email to