IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9537 <draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-16> for your review

Alanna Paloma <apaloma@amsl.com> Tue, 19 March 2024 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <apaloma@amsl.com>
X-Original-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57EE0C14F5FD; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 08:30:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6X8aD7FoAXqZ; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 08:30:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c8a.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE883C14F5FE; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 08:30:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7C804250018; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 08:30:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DV6-gZNAtt5K; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 08:30:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [IPv6:2600:1700:65a2:2250:90dc:f477:376:3ea4]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 374774250001; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 08:30:04 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.400.31\))
From: Alanna Paloma <apaloma@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <A3DA43D8-E4C4-4035-B876-721FED7A7859@verisign.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 08:29:53 -0700
Cc: "rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, "Smith, David - Dulles" <dsmith@verisign.com>, "jkolker@godaddy.com" <jkolker@godaddy.com>, "rcarney@godaddy.com" <rcarney@godaddy.com>, "regext-ads@ietf.org" <regext-ads@ietf.org>, "regext-chairs@ietf.org" <regext-chairs@ietf.org>, "andy@hxr.us" <andy@hxr.us>, "auth48archive@rfc-editor.org" <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DC2AD94B-9C56-4AE6-AF3A-BA692ABBBFF8@amsl.com>
References: <20240308221913.69DBD55D4B@rfcpa.amsl.com> <B3C0DDCD-C98E-43C0-9C3C-998B68B1F448@verisign.com> <CAL0qLwb8ADcJ1J4Rbtzc+EF3GWLf=vjjn65pPHCG8tAYb7n=bw@mail.gmail.com> <A3DA43D8-E4C4-4035-B876-721FED7A7859@verisign.com>
To: "Gould, James" <jgould=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "superuser@gmail.com" <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.400.31)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/ChfSh-bRprkMbUPPBinTu4oHLiI>
Subject: Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9537 <draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-16> for your review
X-BeenThere: auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Archiving AUTH48 exchanges between the RFC Production Center, the authors, and other related parties" <auth48archive.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/>
List-Post: <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 15:30:16 -0000

Hi James and Murray,

Thank you for your replies. We have updated the files to fix the spelling nit and change “whitespace” to “empty space”.

The files have been posted here (please refresh):
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9537.txt
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9537.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9537.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9537.xml

The relevant diff files are posted here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9537-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9537-auth48diff.html (all AUTH48 changes)
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9537-lastdiff.html (htmlwdiff diff between last version and this)
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9537-lastrfcdiff.html (rfcdiff between last version and this)

We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward with the publication process.

For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9537

Thank you,
RFC Editor/ap

> On Mar 18, 2024, at 5:30 PM, Gould, James <jgould=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Murray,   Of the two options, I prefer "empty space" over “blank space”.  I view it as an acceptable substitution.   -- 
>  JG
> 
> <image001.png>
> 
> James Gould
> Fellow Engineer
> jgould@Verisign.com
> 
> 703-948-3271
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> Reston, VA 20190
> 
> Verisign.com
>  From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
> Date: Monday, March 18, 2024 at 7:58 PM
> To: James Gould <jgould@verisign.com>
> Cc: "rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, David Smith <dsmith@verisign.com>, Jody Kolker <jkolker@godaddy.com>, Roger Carney <rcarney@godaddy.com>, "regext-ads@ietf.org" <regext-ads@ietf.org>, "regext-chairs@ietf.org" <regext-chairs@ietf.org>, "andy@hxr.us" <andy@hxr.us>, "auth48archive@rfc-editor.org" <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9537 <draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-16> for your review
>  Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 12:35 AM Gould, James <jgould@verisign.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online Style Guide <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1EhNztVYA-63MAzvLOp1VbMxyO6V8nbMaUWTZ4Trb0EYat1CB8Ppi5lyfnO1xmJSvJLgHl5aLAE8UrF_VkkfnphqTl2cOXMd113lSMhsB4D7wrcxm8zo_7iX6Rd1UW48oEyOsbdgHDdkGyVJfOEIdJ4GNrC3VCe8necnzZQ5DHnGtFqc3APSbZlJfCQPdohuILGRGA-vc62yBCYUTuYZxFWop3dcaBXkjQcTZUeZbNLAIXGnWNadSNawcrkZFv0nr9j4jIB5gJ-j0PyGSXOlge7Ks5vazLpkwrvgQChEzkKo/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fstyleguide%2Fpart2%2F%23inclusive_language> <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1EhNztVYA-63MAzvLOp1VbMxyO6V8nbMaUWTZ4Trb0EYat1CB8Ppi5lyfnO1xmJSvJLgHl5aLAE8UrF_VkkfnphqTl2cOXMd113lSMhsB4D7wrcxm8zo_7iX6Rd1UW48oEyOsbdgHDdkGyVJfOEIdJ4GNrC3VCe8necnzZQ5DHnGtFqc3APSbZlJfCQPdohuILGRGA-vc62yBCYUTuYZxFWop3dcaBXkjQcTZUeZbNLAIXGnWNadSNawcrkZFv0nr9j4jIB5gJ-j0PyGSXOlge7Ks5vazLpkwrvgQChEzkKo/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fstyleguide%2Fpart2%2F%23inclusive_language&gt;>
>> and let us know if any changes are needed.
>>   For example, please consider whether "whitespace" should be updated. -->
>>  JG – I believe “whitespace” is appropriate here.
> 
>  Common alternatives include "blank space" and "empty space".  Would either of those be acceptable substitutions here?
>  -MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email