Hi all, I am back from vacation, and have skimmed through the email exchange over the past several days.
1. Regarding the “copyright issue” I sent a request for review to my legal department mid-last-week, since they had initially requested the statement be included. I’ve not yet gotten a response. 2. Regarding URLs to CableLabs specs (that will be stable in-perpetuity), I’ve sent a request to my publications department today. 3. Regarding the ® symbol, I will update my request to legal to please address this as well. Thanks Bob, Elliot, and Megan for all of your work on this document! -Greg From: Bob Briscoe <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 at 3:09 AM To: "Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Greg White <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9957 <draft-briscoe-docsis-q-protection-07> for your review As it says, i.e. 3.1 and later major releases. Bob On 13/04/2026 18:45, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) wrote: Hi Bob, Thanks. First, does that "or later" cover just 3.1 or later major releases? If the latter, can you confirm call interface compatibility? Regardless, the references URLs need to be updated. Eliot On 13.04.2026 10:34, Bob Briscoe wrote: Eliot, Inclusive language (and the other ten rfced comments) were all fully dealt with inside the XML that I first sent (8 Apr 26), and highlighted in the covering email. Since then, the rfced has deemed all but three of these eleven conversations to have closed (incl inclusive language), so deleted them from the XML. The others (as listed by the RFCED, incl DOCSIS URLs) are awaiting Greg's response on behalf of CableLabs, who is back from vac today. I was just making sure the copyright one was added to this list for Greg, 'cos it seemed to have been omitted. I wasn't expecting or needing a reply. All three URLs state "DOCSIS 3.1 Version Ixx or later", where xx in each case was the first version of that spec to introduce LLD. Bob On 11/04/2026 13:01, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) wrote: Ok. What is left is the issue around inclusive language and the copyright issue. Both need to be taken seriously. I will address the inclusive language and one other issue in this message. See a follow-up on the copyright issue. On the use of the word "Native", because MULPI makes use of this language, and because there is a note as to why the term is used, I think it's okay in this instance, and would request no additional changes. That said, I do note two issues I would like the authors to address at this time: * the 3.1 links are broken in the references. * at least some 4.0 docs (MULPI in particular) have since issued, and they should be reviewed prior to this document's publication. It's not like CableLabs publishes a new version every day, and presumably they would appreciate us using their latest, absent good cause. I will return to the copyright issue in a separate message. Eliot -- ________________________________________________________________ Bob Briscoe http://bobbriscoe.net/ -- ________________________________________________________________ Bob Briscoe http://bobbriscoe.net/
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
