Re: [auth48] *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9309 <draft-koster-rep-12> for your review

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

The new "MUST NOT" is fine.  Rather than deleting it, should we replace the
reference to RFC 1945 with a reference to one of the newer HTTP RFCs?

-MSK, ART AD

On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 10:39 AM Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Dear Gary, Lizzi, Martijn, and *AD (Murray),
>
> * Murray, please let us know if you approve (1) the removal of Normative
> Ref. RFC 1945 and (2) a new sentence containing "MUST NOT" in Section 2.2.4.
>
> Gary, thank you very much for the updated XML files!
>
> Martijn, your contact information in the Authors' Addresses section now
> appears as follows.  Please confirm that this is as desired:
>
>    Martijn Koster (editor)
>    Suton Lane
>    Wymondham, Norfolk
>    NR18 9JG
>    United Kingdom
>    Email: [e-mail]
>
> The latest files are posted here:
>
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.txt
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.pdf
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.xml
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-diff.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-rfcdiff.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-auth48diff.html
>
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-xmldiff1.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-xmldiff2.html
>
> Gary, Lizzi, and Martijn, we have noted your approvals on the AUTH48
> status page:
>
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9309
>
> Thanks again!
>
> RFC Editor/lb
>
>
> > From: Gary Illyes <garyillyes=[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9309 <draft-koster-rep-12> for your review
> > Date: August 29, 2022 at 2:41:50 AM PDT
> > To: Martijn Koster <[e-mail]>, Henner Zeller <
> [e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], Ted Hardie <
> [e-mail]>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail]
> >
> > Thank you. Done on github (
> https://github.com/google/robotstxt/blob/master/protocol-draft/rfc9309.xml#L18)
> and attached to this email again.
> >
> > Henner, we need the last LGTM from you.
>
>
> > From: Martijn Koster <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9309 <draft-koster-rep-12> for your review
> > Date: August 29, 2022 at 2:01:13 AM PDT
> > To: Gary Illyes <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], Ted
> Hardie <[e-mail]>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail]
> >
> > Hi Gary,
> >
> > Please remove my organisation Stalworthy Computing, Ltd  from
> >
> https://github.com/google/robotstxt/blob/master/protocol-draft/rfc9309.xml#L18
> >
> > The rest LGTM
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > — Martijn
>
>
> > From: Lizzi Sassman <lizzi=[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9309 <draft-koster-rep-12> for your review
> > Date: August 26, 2022 at 12:58:13 PM PDT
> > To: Gary Illyes <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail], Martijn Koster <[e-mail]>,
> Henner Zeller <[e-mail]>, Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail], [e-mail]
> >
> > The draft LGTM.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Lizzi
>
> > On Aug 26, 2022, at 7:08 AM, Gary Illyes <garyillyes=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for your edits and review. Lizzi and I addressed the comments
> received and attached the updated XML to this email (also at
> https://github.com/google/robotstxt/blob/master/protocol-draft/rfc9309.xml
> )
> >
> > The draft attached looks good to me and from my perspective approved for
> publication.
> >
> > Martijn, Lizzi, Henner, please review this draft and provide feedback
> (probably on GitHub) and/or approval for publication.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 8:24 AM <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > *****IMPORTANT*****
> >
> > Updated 2022/08/25
> >
> > 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/rfc9309.xml
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.html
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.pdf
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.txt
> >
> > Diff file of the text:
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-diff.html
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-rfcdiff.html (side by
> side)
> >
> > Diff of the XML:
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309-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/rfc9309.original.v2v3.xml
> >
> > XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
> > only:
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9309.form.xml
> >
> >
> > Tracking progress
> > -----------------
> >
> > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9309
> >
> > Please let us know if you have any questions.
> >
> > Thank you for your cooperation,
> >
> > RFC Editor
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > RFC9309 (draft-koster-rep-12)
> >
> > Title            : Robots Exclusion Protocol
> > Author(s)        : M. Koster, Ed., G. Illyes, Ed., H. Zeller, Ed., L.
> Sassman, Ed.
> > WG Chair(s)      :
> > Area Director(s) :
> >
> >
> > <rfc9309.xml>
>
>