Re: [auth48] [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9293 <draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-28> for your review

[Jean Mahoney <[e-mail]>]

Martin,

Thank you for your response. As approvals are now complete, this 
document will move forward in the publication process at this time.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9293

Best regards,

RFC Editor/jm

On 8/11/22 4:37 PM, Martin Duke wrote:
> It's fine as-is.
>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 2:28 PM Jean Mahoney <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     Thank you, Wesley! We have noted your approval on the AUTH48
>     status page:
>
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9293
>
>     We'll await word from Martin regarding the creation of a
>     Contributors section at the end of the document to capture
>     Postel's and Oppermann's contributions.
>
>     Best regards,
>
>     RFC Editor/jm
>
>     On 8/10/22 7:28 PM, Wesley Eddy wrote:
>>
>>     I approve.  The document looks great; thank you for your work on
>>     it and the many improvements!
>>
>>
>>     On 8/3/2022 5:44 PM, Jean Mahoney wrote:
>>>     Martin,
>>>
>>>     Thank you for your reply. We have added the text that required
>>>     your approval:
>>>
>>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293-lastrfcdiff.html
>>>     (these changes side by side)
>>>
>>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293.txt
>>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293.pdf
>>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293.html
>>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293.xml
>>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293-diff.html (all
>>>     changes inline)
>>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293-rfcdiff.html (all
>>>     changes side by side)
>>>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293-auth48diff.html (all
>>>     AUTH48 changes inline)
>>>
>>>     We'll await word from you and Wesley regarding other changes
>>>     and/or approval.
>>>
>>>     Best regards,
>>>
>>>     RFC Editor/jm
>>>
>>>     On 8/3/22 11:41 AM, Martin Duke wrote:
>>>>     I approve.
>>>>
>>>>     On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 11:17 AM Jean Mahoney
>>>>     <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         Wesley,
>>>>
>>>>         Thanks for your reply. We've updated the document:
>>>>
>>>>         https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293-lastrfcdiff.html
>>>>         (these changes side by side)
>>>>
>>>>         Regarding the spelling of "acknowledgment", we discovered
>>>>         that we had already made that change (and that change was
>>>>         highlighted in question 56a). Apologies for any confusion
>>>>         caused by asking about it again.
>>>>
>>>>         https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293.txt
>>>>         https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293.pdf
>>>>         https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293.html
>>>>         https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293.xml
>>>>         https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293-diff.html (all
>>>>         changes inline)
>>>>         https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293-rfcdiff.html
>>>>         (all changes side by side)
>>>>         https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293-auth48diff.html
>>>>         (all AUTH48 changes inline)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         We'll await word from you and the ADs regarding other
>>>>         changes and/or approval.
>>>>
>>>>         Best regards,
>>>>
>>>>         RFC Editor/jm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         On 7/29/22 11:20 AM, Wesley Eddy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>         Thank you; replies are below:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         On 7/28/2022 6:45 PM, Jean Mahoney wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         *AD, please see the Wesley's questions at the bottom of
>>>>>>         this message.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Wesley,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Thank you for your response. We have updated the document
>>>>>>         with your feedback:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293-lastrfcdiff.html
>>>>>>         (this changes side by side)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293.txt
>>>>>>         https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293.pdf
>>>>>>         https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293.html
>>>>>>         https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293.xml
>>>>>>         https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293-diff.html (all
>>>>>>         changes inline)
>>>>>>         https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293-rfcdiff.html
>>>>>>         (all changes side by side)
>>>>>>         https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9293-auth48diff.html
>>>>>>         (all AUTH48 changes inline)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         We also have two new questions and a followup question:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         1) <!-- [rfced] Section 3.9.1.1 <http://3.9.1.1>: Please
>>>>>>         review the placement of commas in the
>>>>>>         following. We note that "local IP address," has a comma
>>>>>>         following it, but
>>>>>>         the other options have the comma before.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Current:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>               Format: OPEN (local port, remote socket,
>>>>>>         active/passive [,
>>>>>>               timeout] [, Diffserv field] [,
>>>>>>         security/compartment] [local IP
>>>>>>               address,] [, options]) -> local connection name
>>>>>>         -->
>>>>>>
>>>>>         You're correct, the comment should be before, as with the
>>>>>         other optional parameters.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>         2) <!-- [rfced] Sections 3.9.1.2 and 3.9.1.3
>>>>>>         <http://3.9.1.3>: In the following format statements,
>>>>>>         should square brackets be used to indicate optional
>>>>>>         items? FYI, we have
>>>>>>         updated "push flag" to "PUSH flag" and "urgent flag" to
>>>>>>         "URGENT flag" in
>>>>>>         the second format statement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Current:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            Format: SEND (local connection name, buffer address,
>>>>>>         byte count,
>>>>>>            PUSH flag (optional), URGENT flag [,timeout])
>>>>>>            ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            Format: RECEIVE (local connection name, buffer
>>>>>>         address, byte
>>>>>>            count) -> byte count, URGENT flag, PUSH flag (optional)
>>>>>>         -->
>>>>>>
>>>>>         Yes, I think this is a good idea for consistency within
>>>>>         the document, thank you.
>>>>>
>>>>>         I think that would be:
>>>>>
>>>>>             Format: SEND (local connection name, buffer address, byte count, URGENT flag [, PUSH
>>>>>             flag] [, timeout])
>>>>>
>>>>>             Format: RECEIVE (local connection name, buffer address, byte count)
>>>>>             -> byte count, URGENT flag [, PUSH flag]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>         3) <!-- [rfced] Terminology:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         b) The following are used inconsistently. The number of
>>>>>>         instances are provided in parentheses. Please let us know
>>>>>>         how we can make these terms consistent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         acknowledgement (13) / acknowledgment (66)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         -->
>>>>>>
>>>>>         I noticed in older RFCs there is a mixture, but in newer
>>>>>         ones the spelling without the extra 'e' seems prevalent. 
>>>>>         So, lets go with "acknowledgment" (with one exception in
>>>>>         the references list, where it's spelled with the extra 'e'
>>>>>         in the title of RFC 2883).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>