Hi Ketan, Pascal, and Michael, Thank you for your replies. We have updated Sections 11.10 and 11.12 as discussed; please see the updated files below. We have also noted Ketan’s approval of the changes in Sections 2.4.5, 3.2, 3.6, 3.7.2.3, 3.7.2.4, 4.2, 5.2, 5.3, 6.4.1, 6.4.3 (Figure 19), 6.8, and 10.
Michael, we now await your approval of the document. Once your approval is received, we will ask IANA to update their registries to match the edited document before moving forward with publication. —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) For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9914 Best regards, Karen Moore RFC Production Center > On Mar 31, 2026, at 12:17 AM, Pascal Thubert <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]
