Dear all: my fault, I glitched, confused bit 1 and value 1 in status. Dear Karen: Please revert table 29 in section 11.10.
And I agree the 3rd row (unassigned) in table 30 should range 2 to 4 instead of 1 to 4, since we added a row for the value 1. All the best, Pascal Le mar. 31 mars 2026 à 07:21, Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> a écrit : > Hi Pascal, > > Do you have any concerns with reverting the change in section 11.10 table > 29? > > Karen, the unassigned should be 2..4 in section 11.12 table 30? > > Please take this email as my approval once the above changes are made. > > Thanks, > Ketan > > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 6:09 AM Karen Moore <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi Michael, >> >> We have retrieved the updated xml file from < >> https://www.sandelman.ca/tmp/rfc9914-authors-fixed-figures.xml> and have >> updated our files accordingly. The lastdiff file only shows changes to >> Figure 19 - is that correct? If there were further edits, please attach the >> updated xml file that contains all the edits to this email or point us to >> where we can retrieve the correct file. >> >> Regarding the update from "Transient Failure” to “Reserved” for value 1 >> in Section 11.10, as background, Pascal requested the following change on >> March 14th (note that this change is in Table 29): >> >> > 3) in section 11.10 table 28, bit of value 1 is reserved in section >> 5.2 so please replace "Transient Failure" with "Reserved". >> >> We look forward to hearing how we can help make the running text >> consistent with Section 11.10 or if the update in Table 29 needs to be >> reverted. >> >> >> —Files (please refresh)— >> >> Updated XML file: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9914.xml >> >> Updated output files: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9914.txt >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9914.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9914.html >> >> Diff files showing all changes made during AUTH48: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9914-auth48diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9914-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by >> side) >> >> Diff files showing only the changes made during the last edit round: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9914-lastdiff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9914-lastrfcdiff.html (side by >> side) >> >> Diff files showing all changes: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9914-diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9914-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> >> Best regards, >> >> Karen Moore >> RFC Production Center >> >> >> > On Mar 30, 2026, at 3:27 PM, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > Karen Moore <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> *Authors, regarding the change in Section 11.10 (the update of >> >> “Transient Failure” to “Reserved” for value 1), we do see at least one >> >> potential mismatch in the running text. Please review and let us know >> >> if there are any other instances and how we may update for consistency. >> > >> > I seem to have missed the discussion around this. >> > >> >> Section 5.1: >> >> A status of "Transient Failure" (see Section 11.10) is an indication >> that the P-DAO-REQ may be retried >> >> after a reasonable time that depends on the deployment. >> > >> > If we are keeping this text, then surely the IANA needs to say Transient >> > Failure for value 1. So, this feels backwards to me. >> > >> > As far as I know, I've sent all my figure edits and comments. >> > >> > -- >> > ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh >> networks [ >> > ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT >> architect [ >> > ] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on >> rails [ >> > >> >> -- Pascal
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
