Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9465 <draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing-16> for your review

[Raunak Banthia <[e-mail]>]

I approve the changes for publication.

Thanks,
Raunak

On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 11:38 AM Ramakrishnan Chokkanathapuram Sundaram
(ramaksun) <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi, I approve the changes for publication.
>
> Thank you
> Ramki
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Ananya Gopal (ananygop) <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Monday, September 25, 2023 2:26 PM
> *To:* Sarah Tarrant <[e-mail]>; RFC Editor <
> [e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; Ramakrishnan Chokkanathapuram
> Sundaram (ramaksun) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>; [e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9465
> <draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing-16> for your review
>
>
> Hello Sarah,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the changes. The document is ready. I approve the changes
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ananya
>
> *From: *Sarah Tarrant <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 9:02 AM
> *To: *Ananya Gopal (ananygop) <[e-mail]>, RFC Editor <
> [e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Ramakrishnan Chokkanathapuram
> Sundaram (ramaksun) <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>, [e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9465
> <draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing-16> for your review
>
> Authors,
>
> This is a friendly reminder that we have yet to hear back from some of you
> regarding this document’s readiness for publication.
>
> Please review the AUTH48 status page (
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9465) for further information and the
> previous messages in this thread for pertinent communication.
>
> Thank you,
> RFC Editor/st
>
> > On Sep 14, 2023, at 2:16 PM, Sarah Tarrant <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ananya,
> >
> > Thank you for the updated xml file.
> >
> > Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not
> make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any
> further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form.
> We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the
> publication process.
> >
> > Updated XML file:
> > http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9465.xml
> >
> > Updated output files:
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9465.html
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9465.txt
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9465.pdf
> >
> > Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48:
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9465-auth48diff.html
> >
> > Diff files showing all changes:
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9465-diff.html
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9465-rfcdiff.html (side-by-side
> diff)
> >
> > Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view
> the most recent version.
> >
> > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9465
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > RFC Editor/st
> >
> >> On Sep 12, 2023, at 4:20 PM, Ananya Gopal (ananygop) <ananygop=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello RFC editors,  The attached document has responses to all your
> comments. Thanks for your careful review.
> >> Thanks, Ananya
> >> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> >> Date: Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 11:06 AM
> >> To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Ramakrishnan
> Chokkanathapuram Sundaram (ramaksun) <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Ananya Gopal (ananygop) <
> [e-mail]>
> >> Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> >> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9465
> <draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing-16> for your review
> >> Authors,
> >>
> >> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as
> necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
> >>
> >>
> >> 1) <!-- [rfced] FYI, we updated "multiple Multicast source and group
> information"
> >> as follows to improve readability. Please let us know any objections.
> >>
> >> Original:
> >>   This document defines a standard to send multiple Multicast source
> >>   and group information in a single PIM message.
> >>
> >> Updated:
> >>   This document defines a standard to send information about multiple
> >>   multicast sources and groups in a single PIM message.
> >> -->
> >>
> >>
> >> 2) <!-- [rfced] Would updating this section title be helpful to
> readers? The
> >> original mentions "Packed Null-Register", but the text notes that the
> >> Packing Capability bit indicates the "ability of the RP to receive PIM
> >> Packed Null-Register messages and send PIM Packed Register-Stop
> >> messages".
> >>
> >> Original:
> >>   2.  Packed Null-Register Packing Capability
> >>
> >> Perhaps:
> >>   2.  Packing Capability for PIM Packed Null-Register and PIM Packed
> Register-Stop Messages
> >>
> >> Or:
> >>   2.  Packing Capability
> >> -->
> >>
> >>
> >> 3) <!-- [rfced] Please confirm that the P-bit is correctly placed in
> Figure 1. We
> >> ask because IANA has allocated flag bit 0.
> >> -->
> >>
> >>
> >> 4) <!-- [rfced] Please confirm that "Section 4.9.4 of [RFC7761]" is
> correct
> >> here. We ask because that section describes the Register-Stop message
> >> format.
> >>
> >> Original:
> >>   The fields in the PIM Packed Null-Register message are defined in
> >>   Section 4.9.4 of [RFC7761], and the common header in
> >>   [I-D.venaas-pim-rfc8736bis]
> >> -->
> >>
> >>
> >> 5) <!-- [rfced] Would it be helpful to update these sentences as
> follows to
> >> clarify which fields are defined in RFCs 7761 and 9436?
> >>
> >> Original:
> >>   The fields in the PIM Register-Stop message are defined in
> >>   Section 4.9.4 of [RFC7761], and the common header in
> >>   [I-D.venaas-pim-rfc8736bis].
> >>   ...
> >>   The fields in the PIM Packed Null-Register message are defined in
> >>   Section 4.9.4 of [RFC7761], and the common header in
> >>   [I-D.venaas-pim-rfc8736bis]
> >>   ...
> >>   The fields in the PIM Packed Register-Stop message are defined in
> >>   Section 4.9.4 of [RFC7761], and the common header in
> >>   [I-D.venaas-pim-rfc8736bis]
> >>
> >> Perhaps:
> >>   The Group Address and Source Address fields in the PIM Register-Stop
> >>   message are defined in
> >>   Section 4.9.4 of [RFC7761]. The common header is defined in [RFC9436].
> >>   ...
> >>   The Group Address and Source Address fields in the PIM Packed
> >>   Null-Register message are defined in
> >>   Section 4.9.4 of [RFC7761]. The common header is defined in [RFC9436].
> >>   ...
> >>   The Group Address and Source Address fields in the PIM Packed
> >>   Register-Stop message are defined in
> >>   Section 4.9.4 of [RFC7761]. The common header is defined in [RFC9436].
> >> -->
> >>
> >>
> >> 6) <!-- [rfced] FYI, we removed the citation to
> [I-D.venaas-pim-rfc8736bis] here as
> >> the value is not defined in that document.
> >>
> >> Original:
> >>   Type, Subtype: The PIM Packed Null-Register Type value TBD2.
> >>   [I-D.venaas-pim-rfc8736bis]
> >>
> >> Current:
> >>   Type, Subtype:  PIM Packed Null-Register (13.0).
> >> -->
> >>
> >>
> >> 7) <!-- [rfced] Should "until the length of" here be updated to "until
> the end
> >> of", "throughout the length of", or something similar?
> >>
> >> Original:
> >>   After parsing the PIM common header, individual records are then
> >>   parsed one by one until the length of the PIM Packed Null-Register
> >>   message.
> >>   ...
> >>   After parsing the PIM common header, individual records are then
> >>   parsed one by one until the length of the PIM Packed Register-Stop
> >>   message.
> >> -->
> >>
> >>
> >> 8) <!-- [rfced] Please review "for all purposes" in these two
> sentences. Is this
> >> phrase needed? Or should it be updated for clarity?
> >>
> >> Original:
> >>   Sending or receiving a PIM Packed Null-Register message is the
> >>   equivalent, for all purposes, of sending or receiving an individual
> >>   Null-Register message for each record represented in the PIM Packed
> >>   Null-Register message.
> >>   ...
> >>   Sending or receiving a PIM Packed Register-Stop message is the
> >>   equivalent, for all purposes, of sending or receiving an individual
> >>   Null-Register message for each record represented in the PIM Packed
> >>   Register-Stop.
> >>
> >> Perhaps:
> >>   Sending or receiving a PIM Packed Null-Register message has the
> >>   equivalent effect of sending or receiving an individual
> >>   Null-Register message for each record represented in the PIM Packed
> >>   Null-Register message.
> >>   ...
> >>   Sending or receiving a PIM Packed Register-Stop message has the
> >>   equivalent effect of sending or receiving an individual
> >>   Null-Register message for each record represented in the PIM Packed
> >>   Register-Stop.
> >> -->
> >>
> >>
> >> 9) <!-- [rfced] Would you like the references to be alphabetized or
> left in their
> >> current order?
> >> -->
> >>
> >>
> >> 10) <!-- [rfced] FYI, we have added expansions for abbreviations upon
> first use
> >> per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each
> >> expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. Also, would
> it
> >> be helpful to add these to the Terminology section?
> >>
> >> MSDP - Multicast Source Discovery Protocol
> >> PIM-SM - PIM Sparse Mode
> >> -->
> >>
> >>
> >> 11) <!-- [rfced] Terminology
> >>
> >> a) We see both "multicast" and "Multicast" used in the document. We
> updated to
> >> use the lowercase form. Please let us know any objections.
> >>
> >> b) We see the following forms used in the document. Would you like to
> update
> >> for consistency, or will readers understand that these are the same
> thing?
> >>
> >> PIM Null-Register messages vs. PIM Null-Registers
> >> PIM Register-Stop messages vs. PIM Register-Stops
> >> PIM Packed Null-Register messages vs. PIM Packed Null-Registers
> >> PIM Packed Register-Stop messages vs. PIM Packed Register-Stops
> >> -->
> >>
> >>
> >> 12) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the
> online
> >> Style Guide <
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
> >> and let us know if any changes are needed.
> >>
> >> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this
> should
> >> still be reviewed as a best practice.
> >> -->
> >>
> >>
> >> Thank you.
> >>
> >> RFC Editor/st/rv
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sep 5, 2023, at 11:04 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> >>
> >> *****IMPORTANT*****
> >>
> >> Updated 2023/09/05
> >>
> >> 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/rfc9465.xml
> >>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9465.html
> >>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9465.pdf
> >>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9465.txt
> >>
> >> Diff file of the text:
> >>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9465-diff.html
> >>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9465-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
> >>
> >> Alt-diff of the text (allows you to more easily view changes
> >> where text has been deleted or moved):
> >>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9465-alt-diff.html
> >>
> >> Diff of the XML:
> >>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9465-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/rfc9465.original.v2v3.xml
> >>
> >> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
> >> only:
> >>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9465.form.xml
> >>
> >>
> >> Tracking progress
> >> -----------------
> >>
> >> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
> >>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9465
> >>
> >> Please let us know if you have any questions.
> >>
> >> Thank you for your cooperation,
> >>
> >> RFC Editor
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------
> >> RFC9465 (draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing-16)
> >>
> >> Title            : PIM Null-Register packing
> >> Author(s)        : V. Kamath, R. Sundaram, R. Banthia, A. Gopal
> >> WG Chair(s)      : Stig Venaas, Mike McBride
> >>
> >> Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston
> >>
> >>
> >> <rfc9465.xml>
> >
>