[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9957 <draft-briscoe-docsis-q-protection-07> for your review

[Megan Ferguson <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eliot,

Understood and noted at the AUTH48 status page:

https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9957

Thank you.

Megan Ferguson
RFC Production Center


> On Apr 23, 2026, at 10:12 PM, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Megan,
> Please note that I have not yet approved and may have one more requested change.  I will be in touch over the next several days.
> Eliot
> On 23.04.2026 17:06, Megan Ferguson wrote:
>> Hi Eliot,
>> 
>> Apologies! I misinterpreted Greg’s mail as wanting a mention in the Acknowledgments section. I have moved it from there to 1.3 as requested (please refresh).
>> 
>> 
>>> • Regarding the “copyright issue”, I got confirmation that CableLabs is fine removing the CableLabs copyright statement, and replacing it with an acknowledgement. To that end, would it be acceptable to re-instate the previous section 1.3, with some modifications, leaving it as:
>>> 
>>> 1.3. Source Material
>>> Parts of this document are reproduced from [DOCSIS] with kind permission of Cable Television Laboratories, Inc. ("CableLabs").
>>> 
>> The files have been posted here:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957.txt
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957.pdf
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957.html
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957.xml
>> 
>> The diff files have been posted here:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957-diff.html
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957-auth48diff.html
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957-lastdiff.html
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side)
>> 
>> 
>> Thank you.
>> 
>> Megan Feguson
>> RFC Production Center
>> 
>> 
>>> On Apr 22, 2026, at 10:32 PM, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Megan,
>>> Thanks. However, I don't see the text that Greg requested and I agreed. Specifically could you please readd Section 1.3 as he described?
>>> Thanks,
>>> Eliot
>>> On 23.04.2026 00:11, Megan Ferguson wrote:
>>> 
>>>> All,
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you for your replies. We have updated as requested by Greg and approved by Eliot.
>>>> 
>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957.txt
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957.pdf
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957.html
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957.xml
>>>> 
>>>> The diff files have been posted here (please refresh):
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957-diff.html
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957-auth48diff.html
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957-lastdiff.html
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side)
>>>> 
>>>> Please review carefully as we do not make updates once the document is published as an RFC.
>>>> 
>>>> We will await approval from each individual listed on the AUTH48 status page (below) prior to moving this document and its companion forward in the publication process.
>>>> 
>>>> The AUTH48 status page is available here:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9957
>>>> 
>>>> The AUTH48 cluster information is available here:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C350
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you.
>>>> 
>>>> Megan Feguson
>>>> RFC Production Center
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Apr 21, 2026, at 9:52 AM, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> [Megan please see below]
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Greg,
>>>>> On 20.04.2026 22:26, Greg White wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I've gotten resolution for the three outstanding items that were on my list:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> • Regarding the “copyright issue”, I got confirmation that CableLabs is fine removing the CableLabs copyright statement, and replacing it with an acknowledgement. To that end, would it be acceptable to re-instate the previous section 1.3, with some modifications, leaving it as:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1.3. Source Material
>>>>>> Parts of this document are reproduced from [DOCSIS] with kind permission of Cable Television Laboratories, Inc. ("CableLabs").
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> Sure.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> • Regarding URLs to CableLabs specs, the URLs in the document currently are correct. There was an issue with our hosting servers for URLs that ended in ".1". This issue has been resolved, and CableLabs intends to maintain these links for the foreseeable future.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> Ok.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> • Regarding the ® symbol, I got confirmation that we are ok with deleting that symbol.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> Perfect. 
>>>>> Megan, could you publish a new version for approval?
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Eliot
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Greg
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 4/16/26, 12:42 PM, "Megan Ferguson" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> All,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks for your replies and status updates. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We have adopted Bob’s most recent XML file (without further edits) and have reposted everything below.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We will wait to hear back from Greg regarding the outstanding issues mentioned (and have noted them on the AUTH48 status page for this document).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957.txt <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957.txt>
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957.pdf <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957.pdf>
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957.html <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957.html>
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957.xml <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957.xml>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The diff files have been posted here (please refresh):
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957-diff.html <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957-diff.html>
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957-rfcdiff.html <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957-rfcdiff.html> (side by side)
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957-auth48diff.html <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957-auth48diff.html>
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957-auth48rfcdiff.html <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957-auth48rfcdiff.html> (side by side)
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957-lastdiff.html <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957-lastdiff.html>
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957-lastrfcdiff.html <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9957-lastrfcdiff.html> (side by side)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Please review carefully as we do not make updates once the document is published as an RFC.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The AUTH48 status page is available here:
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9957 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9957>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The AUTH48 cluster information is available here:
>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C350 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C350>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Megan Feguson
>>>>>> RFC Production Center
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Apr 14, 2026, at 3:15 PM, Greg White <g.white=[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi all, I am back from vacation, and have skimmed through the email exchange over the past several days. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> • 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.
>>>>>>> • Regarding URLs to CableLabs specs (that will be stable in-perpetuity), I’ve sent a request to my publications department today.
>>>>>>> • 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 <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>>>> Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 at 3:09 AM
>>>>>>> To: "Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, Greg White <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>>>> Cc: "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>>>>> 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/ <http://bobbriscoe.net/>
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> ________________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> Bob Briscoe http://bobbriscoe.net/ <http://bobbriscoe.net/>
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>