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

[Sarah Tarrant <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ananya and Vikas,

Thank you for your replies. We have marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9465).

We will assume your assent to any further changes submitted by your coauthors unless we hear objection at that time. We will await approvals from each of the parties listed at the AUTH48 status page prior to moving this document forward in the publication process.

Thank you,
RFC Editor/st

> On Sep 25, 2023, at 1:29 PM, Vikas Kamath <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
>  I approve the changes for publication.
>  Thanks,
> Vikas
>  From: Ananya Gopal (ananygop) <[e-mail]>
> Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:27 AM
> To: Sarah Tarrant <[e-mail]>, RFC Editor <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Vikas Kamath <[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
> !! External Email
> 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>
> >  !! External Email: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.