Hi Karen, I will wait for the authors to cross-check the IANA considerations sections before approving.
Thanks, Ketan On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 1:06 PM Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Karen, > > I was waiting for all the changes to be done and the final AUTH48 version > to stabilize before taking a look. Seems like we are not there yet. > > While most of the changes are text improvements and clarifications that > are editorial in nature (and there are a lot of them!), there are also some > other changes. > > Looking at IANA considerations, the change in section 11.12 was clearly a > miss, but then the unassigned bits have not been updated. However, I am not > sure if the changes in section 11.10 are consistent with the text. Can the > authors please cross-check? > > Please let me know once we are truly done ... as in done! > > Thanks, > Ketan > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 12:47 AM Karen Moore <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hello Ines, Ketan, Pascal, and *Michael, >> >> Thank you for your comments. Please note that we will need Ketan to >> provide approval of the sections listed below in addition to the changes >> being made to the figures. We also await approval of the document from >> Michael. >> >> > *Ketan, please review the changes in the following sections and let us >> know if you approve. >> > >> > Section 2.4.5 >> > Section 3.2 >> > Section 3.6 >> > Section 3.7.2.3 >> > Section 3.7.2.4 >> > Section 4.2 (added “MUST”) >> > Section 5.2 (added “MUST”) >> > Section 5.3 (added “MUST”) >> > Section 6.4.1 (added “MUST”) >> > Section 6.8 >> > Section 10 >> > >> > Note that the following terms were updated throughout the text: >> > DAO-ACK —> P-DAO-ACK >> > PDR —> P-DAO-REQ >> > PDRSequence —> PDAOReqSequence >> > PAREO -> PREOF >> >> >> *Michael, when you have finished making changes to the diagrams, please >> attach an updated XML file to this email, and I will update our files >> accordingly. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Karen Moore >> RFC Production Center >> >> >> > On Mar 25, 2026, at 12:02 PM, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > Pascal Thubert <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I’ll trust you on this Michael >> > >> > I'm not sure where we are. >> > I am anticipating that Karen will update the diagrams in the XML, once >> she >> > has returned to a desk. >> > >> > Shall I sen an updated Figure 19 with extra "o" then? >> > >> > -- >> > Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT >> consulting ) >> > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide >> >> > On Mar 21, 2026, at 6:02 AM, Ines Robles < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Dear all, >> > >> > Thank you very much to the authors and the RFC Production Center for >> the hard work on this. I agree with the changes, including the latest >> corrections such as those in Figures 18 and 19. The draft updates are >> mostly editorial and improve clarity, consistency, and RFC style without >> changing the technical substance. Overall, the edits look good and helpful, >> and they make the document easier to read and less ambiguous. >> > >> > Best Regards, >> > Ines. >> > >> > On Sat, Mar 21, 2026 at 11:26 AM Pascal Thubert < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> > Hello Michael >> > >> > The skew seems to be coming from tabs in my editor. >> > I reviewed your changes and have no issue with them. >> > >> > I believe that we need to add a P before or above the DAO the figure 18 >> like below: >> > >> > 18 would become >> > >> > ------+--------- >> > | Internet >> > | >> > +-----+ >> > | | Border Router >> > | | (RPL Root) >> > +-----+ | P- ^ | >> > | | DAO | P-DAO-ACK | >> > o o o o | | | >> > o o o o Ingress o o o | ^ | Projected . >> > o o o o o \\ o o o | | P-DAO | Route . >> > o o o o \\ o o o o | ^ | . >> > o o o o o Egress o o v | P-DAO v . >> > o o LLN o o o | >> > o o o o o Loose Source Route Path | >> > o o o o v >> > >> > >> > figure 19 looked OK to me but maybe like below it is clearer? >> > >> > ------+--------- >> > | Internet >> > | >> > +-----+ >> > | | Border Router >> > | | (RPL Root) >> > +-----+ | P- ^ P-DAO-ACK >> > | Track | DAO | >> > o o o Ingress V | >> > o o o o o o X o X Source- >> > o o o o o o o X o o X Routed >> > o o o o o o X o X Segment >> > o o o o o o o o X X >> > Egress >> > o o o o o | >> > Target >> > o o LLN o >> > o o o o >> > all the best; >> > >> > Pascal >> > Le sam. 21 mars 2026 à 02:50, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> >> a écrit : >> > >> > Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > I found though: >> > >> > > Figure 3 seems askew, the ^v route between S and D is hard to >> read. >> > > Figure 4 is better, but might also be better aligned. >> > > Figure 7 has skew and some other issues... like this line of ._- >> under >> > > "Southbound API" >> > > I checked .html and .txt to be sure it wasn't just the red/green >> markup. >> > > Figure 18... not sure if there is a problem. >> > > Figure 19, definitely a problem. >> > >> > Hi, I edited the XML slightly, and put it here: >> > https://www.sandelman.ca/tmp/rfc9914-authors-fixed-figures.xml >> > >> > I think it fixes 3,4,19. >> > I fixed some things on figure 7. >> > I don't know if I got 18. >> > >> > -- >> > Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT >> consulting ) >> > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide >> > >> > -- >> > Pascal >> >> >> > On Mar 18, 2026, at 8:18 PM, Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > Hi Ines/Aris, >> > >> > Can you please take a look and share your perspective? >> > >> > Busy at IETF this week and this is non-trivial (for me at least) and so >> I'll get back by next week. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Ketan >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 12:20 AM Karen Moore < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> > Dear Rahul and *Ketan (AD), >> > >> > Thank you for your reply. We have noted Rahul’s approval on the AUTH48 >> status page (https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9914). Note that >> "coma-separated Targets” was already updated to "comma-separated Targets” >> (Section 3.5, 5th paragraph). This is reflected in the diff file at < >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9914-diff.html>. If there is a >> different instance we missed, please let us know. >> > >> > *Ketan, please review the changes in the following sections and let us >> know if you approve. >> > >> > Section 2.4.5 >> > Section 3.2 >> > Section 3.6 >> > Section 3.7.2.3 >> > Section 3.7.2.4 >> > Section 4.2 (added “MUST”) >> > Section 5.2 (added “MUST”) >> > Section 5.3 (added “MUST”) >> > Section 6.4.1 (added “MUST”) >> > Section 6.8 >> > Section 10 >> > >> > Note that the following terms were updated throughout the text: >> > DAO-ACK —> P-DAO-ACK >> > PDR —> P-DAO-REQ >> > PDRSequence —> PDAOReqSequence >> > PAREO -> PREOF >> > >> >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
