Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9309 <draft-koster-rep-12> for your review

[Gary Illyes <[e-mail]>]

Thank you, Lynne!

I've reread the whole document again in both txt and html and it still
looks good to me.

On Tue, 6 Sep 2022 at 23:20, Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi, Martijn and Gary.
>
> Martijn, we have updated your address; the two-line form is fine.
>
> Gary, we have deleted the 'role="editor"' entries from all four names in
> the XML file.  We have also removed the editor designations in our
> corresponding database record for this document.
>
> As noted on <https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/> under "How can I correct an
> error in a published RFC?", once an RFC is published, we cannot change it.
> Therefore, we want to ensure that everything is satisfactory before we move
> this document forward for publication.
>
> The updated files are here.  You may need to refresh your browser to view
> the latest:
>
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.txt
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.pdf
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.xml
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-diff.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-rfcdiff.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-auth48diff.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-lastdiff.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-lastrfcdiff.html
>
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-xmldiff1.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-xmldiff2.html
>
> Please review the latest copy of the document, and let us know if any
> further changes are needed.  If everything is fine, please let us know that
> as well.  We will wait to hear from you before proceeding.
>
> Thank you!
>
> RFC Editor/lb
>
> > On Sep 6, 2022, at 1:49 PM, Gary Illyes <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > The (editor) comes from my XML; I was looking at XML2RFC examples when I
> was converting the text file to XML, and I picked  the "ed" up from a
> published RFC, alas, I don't remember which one.
> >
> > We can certainly remove it from all names, it doesn't have to be there.
> >
> > On Tue, 6 Sep 2022 at 22:44, Martijn Koster <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > Hi Lynne,
> >
> > I’m not sure why it says “(editor)”; is that some convention?
> >
> > I notice that the street address is incomplete; it should be:
> >
> >     Stalworthy Manor Farm
> >     Suton Lane
> >
> > Or if space does not permit two lines:
> >
> >     Stalworthy Manor Farm, Suton Lane
> >
> > The rest is correct.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > — Martijn
> >
> > > On 6 Sep 2022, at 21:27, Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, Martijn.
> > >
> > > We are preparing this document for publication and could not find a
> reply regarding the following:
> > >
> > >> Martijn, your contact information in the Authors' Addresses section
> now appears as follows.  Please confirm that this is as desired:
> > >>
> > >>  Martijn Koster (editor)
> > >>  Suton Lane
> > >>  Wymondham, Norfolk
> > >>  NR18 9JG
> > >>  United Kingdom
> > >>  Email: [e-mail]
> > >
> > > Please let us know whether this listing is OK "as is" or should be
> updated.
> > >
> > > Thank you!
> > >
> > > RFC Editor/lb
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Sep 2, 2022, at 9:30 AM, Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi, Gary.
> > >>
> > >> Thank you, and glad to hear that the figures look good!
> > >>
> > >> Also, thank you as always for the updated XML file!  Removing the
> quotes in Figure 5 looks good to us as well.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks also for the clarification re. "more" and "valid".
> > >>
> > >> The latest files are posted here:
> > >>
> > >>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.txt
> > >>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.pdf
> > >>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.html
> > >>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.xml
> > >>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-diff.html
> > >>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-rfcdiff.html
> > >>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-auth48diff.html
> > >>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-lastdiff.html
> > >>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-lastrfcdiff.html
> > >>
> > >>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-xmldiff1.html
> > >>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-xmldiff2.html
> > >>
> > >> We have confirmed your approval on the AUTH48 status page and will
> move this document forward for publication shortly:
> > >>
> > >>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9309
> > >>
> > >> Again, many thanks for your help!
> > >>
> > >> RFC Editor/lb
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>> On Sep 2, 2022, at 4:11 AM, Gary Illyes <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi Lynne,
> > >>>
> > >>> The conversion of the tables to artwork is ingenious. The tables now
> look good.
> > >>> I made one modification in figure 5 in section 2.2.3. Specifically,
> removed the double quotes from the 1st and 3rd columns as they seemed
> superfluous. Feel free to change it back if the double quotes are an RFC
> style requirement. The modified XML is attached and also available at
> https://github.com/google/robotstxt/blob/master/protocol-draft/rfc9309.xml
> > >>>
> > >>> The "a more valid" was changed to "valid"; the "more" qualifier
> could've suggested that robots.txt is in fact a valid security measure,
> just not as valid as some other, which is just wrong.
> > >>>
> > >>> As for the merged group in figure 2/table 2, I staged the draft
> using author-tools.ietf.org, both as HTML and TXT, and it looks good to
> me.
> > >>>
> > >>> Overall, pending those double quotes in figure 5, this looks good to
> me and is ready for shipping.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks for working with us on this Lynne!
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 11:27 PM Lynne Bartholomew <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > >>> Resending, with inline email headers pared down, as we received a
> bounce due to the many full headers that I'd included earlier.  (I'd
> included the full headers for tracking purposes.)  Hoping that this reaches
> you all.
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Sep 1, 2022, at 1:06 PM, Lynne Bartholomew <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hi, Gary**, Henner, and Murray.  Thank you for the emails.  Gary,
> thanks for the updated XML files as well!
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ** Gary, although we now have all approvals for publication, due to
> the number of updates made since 31 August, please let us know if further
> changes are needed; we have a couple questions below.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> After everything is resolved and we get confirmation re. same, we
> will be able to move this document forward for publication.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Gary, regarding this item:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Line 495 changed: removed "a more valid", which may have suggested
> that robots.txt is, in fact, a valid security measure—which most certainly
> isn't.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> We still see the word "valid" in this sentence.  Please confirm
> that this is as desired.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Regarding the table-format issues:  We have converted the tables to
> figures; it was the only way to fix the text output while conforming to
> current formatting guidelines.  Please note that due to font and spacing
> differences between the different outputs, we could not always get the same
> layout in the .txt output as what was previously seen in the tables in the
> .html output.  (For example, Figure 1 maxes out the margins in the .txt
> output.)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Please review all of the figures carefully.  For example, in the
> previous iteration, the position of "disallow: /baz" in what was Table 2
> (now Figure 2) was different in the .txt output than in the .html output
> (where "disallow: /baz" was on its own line); which is correct?* It isn't
> clear from the original file what is correct.  Please let us know if
> further updates are needed.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> * We kept "disallow: /baz" on its own line for now, as it appears
> to be part of the single "merged" group.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The latest files are posted here (please refresh your browser to
> see the latest):
> > >>>>
> > >>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.txt
> > >>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.pdf
> > >>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.html
> > >>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.xml
> > >>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-diff.html
> > >>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-rfcdiff.html
> > >>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-auth48diff.html
> > >>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-lastdiff.html
> > >>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-lastrfcdiff.html
> > >>>>
> > >>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-xmldiff1.html
> > >>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-xmldiff2.html
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Henner and Murray, we have noted your approvals on the AUTH48
> status page:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9309
> > >>>>
> > >>>> As noted above, we will move this document forward for publication
> after we receive confirmation that everything is correct.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks again!
> > >>>>
> > >>>> RFC Editor/lb
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> From: Gary Illyes
> > >>>>> Subject: Re: *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9309
> <draft-koster-rep-12> for your review
> > >>>>> Date: August 31, 2022 at 12:54:32 PM PDT
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Hi Lynne,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> We just noticed an oddity and we're wondering if we're doing
> something wrong or if it's a bug in the XML to text converter.
> Specifically, some of our tables get line breaks in the text representation
> when they really shouldn't. For example, table 1 renders as such on
> author-tools.ietf.org:
> > >>>>> | User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0               | user-agent:     |
> > >>>>> | (compatible; ExampleBot/0.1;      | ExampleBot      |
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> In the XML version (and HTML) "ExampleBot" in the second column is
> on the same line as "user-agent:". However, as illustrated above, in the
> converted text version it's on a new line. This renders the reference plain
> wrong.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Do you know if we can fix that somehow? Perhaps adding &nbps; to
> prevent the converter from breaking the line?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Attached a screenshot for reference.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> <image.png>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> From: Gary Illyes
> > >>>>> Subject: Re: *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9309
> <draft-koster-rep-12> for your review
> > >>>>> Date: August 31, 2022 at 11:43:31 AM PDT
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I put an xref to RFC 9110 at the first appearance of HTTP in the
> prose:
> https://github.com/google/robotstxt/blob/master/protocol-draft/rfc9309.xml#L180
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Updated XML also attached.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> From: Gary Illyes
> > >>>>> Subject: Re: *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9309
> <draft-koster-rep-12> for your review
> > >>>>> Date: August 31, 2022 at 11:13:41 AM PDT
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Sure, makes sense; we can do that. In that case I'll use the
> latest HTTP RFC instead of 1945
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>
> > >>>>> Subject: Re: *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9309
> <draft-koster-rep-12> for your review
> > >>>>> Date: August 31, 2022 at 11:11:30 AM PDT
> > >>>>> To: Gary Illyes
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Fair enough.  I wonder though if we should have some kind of link
> to what HTTP is anyway, perhaps attached to its first appearance in the
> prose after the introduction.  It really is a normative dependency here,
> even if it is ubiquitous.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> -MSK
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> From: Gary Illyes
> > >>>>> Subject: Re: *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9309
> <draft-koster-rep-12> for your review
> > >>>>> Date: August 31, 2022 at 11:02:18 AM PDT
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> We could, if there was an RFC that says that clients must follow
> *at least* 5 hops. Unfortunately all I can find is the opposite, follow *up
> to* 5 hops (because more is likely a loop).
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>
> > >>>>> Subject: Re: *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9309
> <draft-koster-rep-12> for your review
> > >>>>> Date: August 31, 2022 at 10:58:54 AM PDT
> > >>>>> To: Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The new "MUST NOT" is fine.  Rather than deleting it, should we
> replace the reference to RFC 1945 with a reference to one of the newer HTTP
> RFCs?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> -MSK, ART AD
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> From: Gary Illyes
> > >>>>> Subject: Re: *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9309
> <draft-koster-rep-12> for your review
> > >>>>> Date: August 31, 2022 at 10:52:12 AM PDT
> > >>>>> To: Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>, "Murray S.
> Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> With Henner's approval, I believe we're only missing the AD
> approval for the minute changes we made and Lynne highlighted at the
> beginning of this fork of the thread.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9309
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 at 20:36, Lynne Bartholomew <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > >>>>> Dear Gary,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> No worries, and thank you for the clarification.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> RFC Editor/lb
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Aug 29, 2022, at 10:49 AM, Gary Illyes wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Apologies, should've noted the new sentence:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> "For example, a "Sitemaps" record MUST NOT terminate a group."
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The normative reference to RFC 1945 was an erroneous reference;
> we implied that that RFC defines how many hops to follow in a redirect
> chain, which is simply not the case.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 at 19:39, Lynne Bartholomew <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > >>>>>> Dear Gary, Lizzi, Martijn, and *AD (Murray),
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> * Murray, please let us know if you approve (1) the removal of
> Normative Ref. RFC 1945 and (2) a new sentence containing "MUST NOT" in
> Section 2.2.4.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Gary, thank you very much for the updated XML files!
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Martijn, your contact information in the Authors' Addresses
> section now appears as follows.  Please confirm that this is as desired:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>  Martijn Koster (editor)
> > >>>>>>  Suton Lane
> > >>>>>>  Wymondham, Norfolk
> > >>>>>>  NR18 9JG
> > >>>>>>  United Kingdom
> > >>>>>>  Email: [e-mail]
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The latest files are posted here:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.txt
> > >>>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.pdf
> > >>>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.html
> > >>>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.xml
> > >>>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-diff.html
> > >>>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-rfcdiff.html
> > >>>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-auth48diff.html
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-xmldiff1.html
> > >>>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-xmldiff2.html
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Gary, Lizzi, and Martijn, we have noted your approvals on the
> AUTH48 status page:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9309
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Thanks again!
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> RFC Editor/lb
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> From: Gary Illyes
> > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9309 <draft-koster-rep-12> for
> your review
> > >>>>>>> Date: August 29, 2022 at 2:41:50 AM PDT
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Thank you. Done on github (
> https://github.com/google/robotstxt/blob/master/protocol-draft/rfc9309.xml#L18)
> and attached to this email again.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Henner, we need the last LGTM from you.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> <snipped>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Aug 31, 2022, at 10:08 AM, Gary Illyes wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> New version up addressing Henner's last comment (also attached to
> this email):
> https://github.com/google/robotstxt/blob/master/protocol-draft/rfc9309.xml#L495
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Line 495 changed: removed "a more valid", which may have suggested
> that robots.txt is, in fact, a valid security measure—which most certainly
> isn't.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I think that was the last of the approvals from our side. Passing
> baton to AD
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 6:59 PM Henner Zeller <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > >>>>> Looks good to me. Approved!
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 at 02:42, Gary Illyes wrote:
> > >>>>> Thank you. Done on github (
> https://github.com/google/robotstxt/blob/master/protocol-draft/rfc9309.xml#L18)
> and attached to this email again.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Henner, we need the last LGTM from you.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 11:01 AM Martijn Koster <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > >>>>> Hi Gary,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Please remove my organisation Stalworthy Computing, Ltd  from
> > >>>>>
> https://github.com/google/robotstxt/blob/master/protocol-draft/rfc9309.xml#L18
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The rest LGTM
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> — Martijn
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> On 26 Aug 2022, at 15:08, Gary Illyes wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Thank you for your edits and review. Lizzi and I addressed the
> comments received and attached the updated XML to this email (also at
> https://github.com/google/robotstxt/blob/master/protocol-draft/rfc9309.xml
> )
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The draft attached looks good to me and from my perspective
> approved for publication.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Martijn, Lizzi, Henner, please review this draft and provide
> feedback (probably on GitHub) and/or approval for publication.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 8:24 AM <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > >>>>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Updated 2022/08/25
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> RFC Author(s):
> > >>>>>> --------------
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Instructions for Completing AUTH48
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed
> and
> > >>>>>> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an
> RFC.
> > >>>>>> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
> > >>>>>> available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
> > >>>>>> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before
> providing
> > >>>>>> your approval.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Planning your review
> > >>>>>> ---------------------
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Please review the following aspects of your document:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> *  RFC Editor questions
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>  Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
> > >>>>>>  that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
> > >>>>>>  follows:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>  <!-- [rfced] ... -->
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>  These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> *  Changes submitted by coauthors
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>  Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
> > >>>>>>  coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you
> > >>>>>>  agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> *  Content
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>  Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
> > >>>>>>  change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular
> attention to:
> > >>>>>>  - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
> > >>>>>>  - contact information
> > >>>>>>  - references
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> *  Copyright notices and legends
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>  Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
> > >>>>>>  RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
> > >>>>>>  (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> *  Semantic markup
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>  Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements
> of
> > >>>>>>  content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that
> <sourcecode>
> > >>>>>>  and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at
> > >>>>>>  <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> *  Formatted output
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>  Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
> > >>>>>>  formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file,
> is
> > >>>>>>  reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting
> > >>>>>>  limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Submitting changes
> > >>>>>> ------------------
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’
> as all
> > >>>>>> the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The
> parties
> > >>>>>> include:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>  *  your coauthors
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>  *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>  *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
> > >>>>>>     IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
> > >>>>>>     responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>  *  [e-mail], which is a new archival
> mailing list
> > >>>>>>     to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active
> discussion
> > >>>>>>     list:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>    *  More info:
> > >>>>>>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>    *  The archive itself:
> > >>>>>>       https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>    *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt
> out
> > >>>>>>       of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive
> matter).
> > >>>>>>       If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that
> you
> > >>>>>>       have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
> > >>>>>>       [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC
> list and
> > >>>>>>       its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> An update to the provided XML file
> > >>>>>> — OR —
> > >>>>>> An explicit list of changes in this format
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Section # (or indicate Global)
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> OLD:
> > >>>>>> old text
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> NEW:
> > >>>>>> new text
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an
> explicit
> > >>>>>> list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes
> that seem
> > >>>>>> beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion
> of text,
> > >>>>>> and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be
> found in
> > >>>>>> the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream
> manager.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Approving for publication
> > >>>>>> --------------------------
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email
> stating
> > >>>>>> that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY
> ALL’,
> > >>>>>> as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Files
> > >>>>>> -----
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The files are available here:
> > >>>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.xml
> > >>>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.html
> > >>>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.pdf
> > >>>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.txt
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Diff file of the text:
> > >>>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-diff.html
> > >>>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-rfcdiff.html (side
> by side)
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Diff of the XML:
> > >>>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-xmldiff1.html
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your
> own
> > >>>>>> diff files of the XML.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
> > >>>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.original.v2v3.xml
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format
> updates
> > >>>>>> only:
> > >>>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.form.xml
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Tracking progress
> > >>>>>> -----------------
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
> > >>>>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9309
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> RFC Editor
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> --------------------------------------
> > >>>>>> RFC9309 (draft-koster-rep-12)
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Title            : Robots Exclusion Protocol
> > >>>>>> Author(s)        : M. Koster, Ed., G. Illyes, Ed., H. Zeller,
> Ed., L. Sassman, Ed.
> > >>>>>> WG Chair(s)      :
> > >>>>>> Area Director(s) :
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> <rfc9309.xml>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> <rfc9309.xml>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> <rfc9309.xml>
> > >>
> > >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > Gary
>
> --
Thanks,
Gary