Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9531 <draft-irtf-icnrg-pathsteering-07> for your review

["\"David R. Oran\"" <[e-mail]>]

I approve publication.

One quick note:
Two other documents are held waiting on this one for publication:
AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9508 <draft-irtf-icnrg-icnping-12> and
AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9507 <draft-irtf-icnrg-icntraceroute-11>.

These should go forward for final author approval as well.

Thanks!


On 2 Feb 2024, at 12:18, Sarah Tarrant wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> Thank you for your reply. We have updated the document accordingly.
>
> We will await final approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the publication process.
>
> The updated files have been posted here (please refresh):
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9531.txt
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9531.pdf
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9531.html
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9531.xml
>
> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh):
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9531-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9531-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes only)
>
> 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/rfc9531
>
> Thank you,
> RFC Editor/st
>
>> On Feb 1, 2024, at 10:15 AM, David R. Oran <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Again, thanks for all the hard work.
>> I’ve proofread the document, including a scan for objectionable language.
>> I did find a one thing that ought to get fixed:
>>    • In section 1.3, s/if successful, receiving a Data containing a path label/if successful, receiving a Data message containing a path label/
>> Getting there!
>> On 31 Jan 2024, at 13:30, Sarah Tarrant wrote:
>> Hi David,
>> Thank you for your reply. We have updated the document accordingly.
>> We have one followup comment:
>>    • Regarding:
>> Well, I still think the intended audience won’t be confused, and the parenthetical explanation may be regarded as pedantic. I’d prefer to assume mathematical competence by the reader. Perhaps ask one of your colleagues (or maybe the RFC editor or Independent submission editor if on balance it’s better to spell this out?
>> After consulting the other editors, we came to the same conclusion that readers with a background in computer science would understand what “O” stands for, and we will not further update the text.
>> 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
>> The updated files have been posted here (please refresh):
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9531.txt
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9531.pdf
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9531.html
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9531.xml
>> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh):
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9531-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9531-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes only)
>> 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/rfc9531
>> Thank you,
>> RFC Editor/st
>>DaveO
DaveO