Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9501 <draft-ietf-shmoo-remote-fee-09> for your review

["Salz, Rich" <[e-mail]>]

Since Mirja already agreed (in the email thread) about a separate BCP number, I'll go out on a limb :) and say that we agree with your choice C. The new number 239 is fine.  (It's prime, actually.)

Thanks.  I assume for this case not editing the XML is okay.

On 12/4/23, 3:06 PM, "Sandy Ginoza" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:


Hi Rich,


Thank you for your review. We have updated the document per your reply. However, please review the followup question below and let us know how to proceed. 


1) <!-- [rfced] We have marked this as part of BCP 95 because it extends RFC 3935, which is part of BCP 95. Please review and let us know if this is incorrect. 


RFC 3935: A Mission Statement for the IETF 


A current list of BCPs is available here: 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcps__;!!GjvTz_vk!RjJEtk8gW3HmxkwbHrIllkfkXW-ICIg6bTgHDGWK50duNiSt4B2FNdh4gZ2ERxh4tpbPk66ZCiE$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcps__;!!GjvTz_vk!RjJEtk8gW3HmxkwbHrIllkfkXW-ICIg6bTgHDGWK50duNiSt4B2FNdh4gZ2ERxh4tpbPk66ZCiE$> 
-->
<!-- [authors] No. The WG decided to not mark this as "updates 3935." The WG
also did not discuss making this a part of the BCP. Doing so would mean
backing the process up to WGLC, etc. We don't want to do that. -->




[rfced] Apologies for not being clear originally. This document was approved for publication as a BCP, so it will be assigned a BCP number. Our question is whether this document should be assigned:
a) to BCP 95 (should it be grouped with "A Mission Statement for the IETF” (RFC 3935, BCP 95))
b) to another BCP number (does it fit with another BCP grouping)
c) a new BCP number (does it not fit within any existing BCP)


After further research, we believe the c) is intended; see <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manycouches/4z85K2zjKjnFBXaEd84k9dE7FGI/__;!!GjvTz_vk!RjJEtk8gW3HmxkwbHrIllkfkXW-ICIg6bTgHDGWK50duNiSt4B2FNdh4gZ2ERxh4tpbP2LYJvvU$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manycouches/4z85K2zjKjnFBXaEd84k9dE7FGI/__;!!GjvTz_vk!RjJEtk8gW3HmxkwbHrIllkfkXW-ICIg6bTgHDGWK50duNiSt4B2FNdh4gZ2ERxh4tpbP2LYJvvU$> >. We have assigned BCP 239. 
Please review and let us know if updates are needed.




The updated files are available here: 


https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501.xml__;!!GjvTz_vk!RjJEtk8gW3HmxkwbHrIllkfkXW-ICIg6bTgHDGWK50duNiSt4B2FNdh4gZ2ERxh4tpbPaJVIF4Y$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501.xml__;!!GjvTz_vk!RjJEtk8gW3HmxkwbHrIllkfkXW-ICIg6bTgHDGWK50duNiSt4B2FNdh4gZ2ERxh4tpbPaJVIF4Y$> 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501.txt__;!!GjvTz_vk!RjJEtk8gW3HmxkwbHrIllkfkXW-ICIg6bTgHDGWK50duNiSt4B2FNdh4gZ2ERxh4tpbPerKmx8s$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501.txt__;!!GjvTz_vk!RjJEtk8gW3HmxkwbHrIllkfkXW-ICIg6bTgHDGWK50duNiSt4B2FNdh4gZ2ERxh4tpbPerKmx8s$> 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501.pdf__;!!GjvTz_vk!RjJEtk8gW3HmxkwbHrIllkfkXW-ICIg6bTgHDGWK50duNiSt4B2FNdh4gZ2ERxh4tpbPJOra8bk$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501.pdf__;!!GjvTz_vk!RjJEtk8gW3HmxkwbHrIllkfkXW-ICIg6bTgHDGWK50duNiSt4B2FNdh4gZ2ERxh4tpbPJOra8bk$> 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501.html__;!!GjvTz_vk!RjJEtk8gW3HmxkwbHrIllkfkXW-ICIg6bTgHDGWK50duNiSt4B2FNdh4gZ2ERxh4tpbP6XEyywA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501.html__;!!GjvTz_vk!RjJEtk8gW3HmxkwbHrIllkfkXW-ICIg6bTgHDGWK50duNiSt4B2FNdh4gZ2ERxh4tpbP6XEyywA$> 


AUTH48 diff: 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501-auth48diff.html__;!!GjvTz_vk!RjJEtk8gW3HmxkwbHrIllkfkXW-ICIg6bTgHDGWK50duNiSt4B2FNdh4gZ2ERxh4tpbPAwEU9bs$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501-auth48diff.html__;!!GjvTz_vk!RjJEtk8gW3HmxkwbHrIllkfkXW-ICIg6bTgHDGWK50duNiSt4B2FNdh4gZ2ERxh4tpbPAwEU9bs$> 


Comprehensive diffs: 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501-diff.html__;!!GjvTz_vk!RjJEtk8gW3HmxkwbHrIllkfkXW-ICIg6bTgHDGWK50duNiSt4B2FNdh4gZ2ERxh4tpbPWbJAvdA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501-diff.html__;!!GjvTz_vk!RjJEtk8gW3HmxkwbHrIllkfkXW-ICIg6bTgHDGWK50duNiSt4B2FNdh4gZ2ERxh4tpbPWbJAvdA$> 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501-rfcdiff.html__;!!GjvTz_vk!RjJEtk8gW3HmxkwbHrIllkfkXW-ICIg6bTgHDGWK50duNiSt4B2FNdh4gZ2ERxh4tpbPFbTIYTk$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9501-rfcdiff.html__;!!GjvTz_vk!RjJEtk8gW3HmxkwbHrIllkfkXW-ICIg6bTgHDGWK50duNiSt4B2FNdh4gZ2ERxh4tpbPFbTIYTk$> 




Please review and let know if further updates are needed or if you approve the RFC for publication. 


Thank you,
RFC Editor/sg










> On Nov 29, 2023, at 6:49 AM, Salz, Rich <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
> Attached is our response the suggested changes. There should be an '[authors]' XML comment for every '[rcfed]' comment.
> 
> Thank you for your patience.
> 
> 
> <rfc9501.xml>