Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9453 <draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases-16> for your review

[Yong-Geun Hong <[e-mail]>]

Dear Sandy Ginoza.

Thanks again for your efforts.

>From my side, there is no request to update. Everything is O.K.

I want to check one thing for Samita's affiliation.
Samita, if you want to reflect your new affiliation, let us know.

Best regards.

Yong-Geun.

2023년 9월 1일 (금) 오전 8:40, Sandy Ginoza <[e-mail]>님이 작성:

> Hi Yong-Geun, Authors,
>
> We have updated the document as described below.  Please review and let us
> know if any additional updates are needed or if you approve the RFC for
> publication.
>
> Note that we require an approval from each individual listed in the
> document header.
>
>
> The files are available here:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453.xml
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453.txt
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453.pdf
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453.html
>
> Diffs highlighting the most recent updates only:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453-lastdiff.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453-lastrfcdiff.html
>
> AUTH48 diff (highlighting changes since the document entered AUTH48):
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453-auth48diff.html
>
> Comprehensive diffs:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453-diff.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453-rfcdiff.html
>
> An alternative comprehensive diff - this version will allow you to view
> changes in the Acknowledgements more easily:
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453-alt-diff.html
>
>
> Thank you,
> RFC Editor/sg
>
>
>
> > On Aug 23, 2023, at 5:52 PM, Yong-Geun Hong <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Sandy Ginoza.
> >
> > Thanks again for your efforts.
> >
> >  I added my response in lines.
> >
> > Best regards.
> >
> > Yong-Geun.
> >
> >
> > 2023년 8월 24일 (목) 오전 1:25, Sandy Ginoza <[e-mail]>님이 작성:
> > Greetings Yong-Geun,
> >
> > Thank you for your review and detailed reply.  We have updated the
> document and have a few remaining questions below.  The current files are
> available here:
> >
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453.xml
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453.txt
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453.pdf
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453.html
> >
> > AUTH48 diff (highlighting changes since the document entered AUTH48):
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453-auth48diff.html
> >
> > Comprehensive diffs:
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453-diff.html
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453-rfcdiff.html
> >
> > An alternative comprehensive diff - this version will allow you to view
> changes in the Acknowledgements more easily:
> >    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453-alt-diff.html
> >
> >
> > Open items:
> >
> > 1) We mistakenly did not include this in our original set of questions.
> For readability, may we update the following?
>
> >
> > Original:
>
> >    A user may turn on/off or may control home
>
> >    appliances by pressing a wall switch or by pressing a button in a
>
> >    remote control.
>
> >
> > Perhaps:
>
> >    A user may turn home appliances on and off, or the user may control
> them
> >    by pressing a wall switch or a button on a
>
> >    remote control.
> >
> > [Yong-Geun]  Thanks for the update. Agreed.
> >
> > 2) Regarding table 2, thank you for your suggested updates.
> Unfortunately, some of the hyphenation did not display as desired in all of
> the outputs (i.e., the hyphenation breaks in the text were different from
> those in the html).  Please review our updates to Table 2 and let us know
> if you have concerns with the current format and use of abbreviations
> (e.g., Tx is used for transmission; we removed the brackets from RFCs
> (seems reasonable because they are all referenced elsewhere in the
> document).
> >
> > [Yong-Geun]  Thanks for the update. It looks better and simpler.
> >                      One question.  As it changed from 'Automation' to
> 'Autom.', how about changing from "Requirement" to "Req." ?
> >
> >
> > Thank you,
> > RFC Editor/sg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 18, 2023, at 11:04 PM, Yong-Geun Hong <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear RFC Editor.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your efforts to publish RFC 9453.
> > >
> > > I add my response in lines.
> > >
> > > Best regards.
> > >
> > > Yong-Geun.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> 보낸 사람: [e-mail]
> > >> 날짜: 2023년 8월 8일 오후 4시 31분 32초 GMT+9
> > >> 받는 사람: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
> [e-mail], [e-mail]
> > >> 참조: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
> [e-mail], [e-mail],
> [e-mail]
> > >> 제목: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9453 <draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases-16> for your
> review
> > >>
> > >> Authors,
> > >>
> > >> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as
> necessary)
> > >> the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
> > >>
> > >> 1) <!-- [rfced] For readability, we would like to flip the order of
> the
> > >> title.  In addition, to match the 6lo Working Group's wording (see
> > >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/6lo/charter/), should the title be
> updated
> > >> as follows?  Please review.
> > >>
> > >> Note that this update would also affect terminology in the abstract.
> > >>
> > >> Original:
> > >> IPv6 over Constrained Node Networks (6lo) Applicability & Use cases
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps:
> > >> Applicability and Use Cases for IPv6 over Networks of
> Resource-constrained Nodes (6lo)
> > >> -->
> > > [Yong-Geun] Agreed.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear
> in the
> > >> title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search.
> > >> -->
> > > [Yong-Geun]  It seems that the updated title is enough.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 3) <!-- [rfced] Should this list of design space dimensions be
> capitalized
> > >> as they are in Appendix A, or may we lowecase the dimensions in
> Appendix A?
> > >> In addition, we note that Security Level does not appear in the list
> in
> > >> Appendix A; should it be added to match the list in section 1?
> > >>
> > >> Original:
> > >>   In addition, it considers various network design space
> > >>   dimensions such as deployment, network size, power source,
> > >>   connectivity, multi-hop communication, traffic pattern, security
> > >>   level, mobility, and QoS requirements (see Appendix A).
> > >>
> > >> Original from Appendix A:
> > >>   In [RFC6568], the following design space dimensions are described:
> > >>   Deployment, Network size, Power source, Connectivity, Multi-hop
> > >>   communication, Traffic pattern, Mobility, Quality of Service (QoS).
> > >> -->
> > > [Yong-Geun]  Agree to modify the list of design space dimensions to be
> capitalized in Appendix A.
> > >                       I propose to delete “Security Level”.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 4) <!-- [rfced] May we expand SIG as Special Interest Group?
> > >>
> > >> Original:
> > >>   The Bluetooth
> > >>   SIG has also published the Internet Protocol Support Profile (IPSP).
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps (which matches what appears in RFC 9159):
> > >>   The Bluetooth Special Interest Group (Bluetooth SIG) has also
> published
> > >>   the Internet Protocol Support Profile (IPSP).
> > >> -->
> > > [Yong-Geun] Agreed.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 5) <!-- [rfced] Did you intend to include references for ISO/IEC
> 14443 A&B
> > >> and JIS-X 6319-4?  If yes, please provide us with the reference
> information
> > >> or pointers to the reference information.
> > >>
> > >> Original:
> > >>   NFC complements many popular consumer-level wireless
> > >>   technologies, by utilizing the key elements in existing standards
> for
> > >>   contactless card technology (ISO/IEC 14443 A&B and JIS-X 6319-4).
> > >> -->
> > > [Yong-Geun] The reference for ISO/IEC 14443 A&B and JIS-X 6319-4 is
> not necessary in this draft. So proposed the expression of ISO/IEC 14443
> A&B and JIS-X 6319-4
> > >
> > > --> Proposal:
> > >   NFC complements many popular consumer-level wireless
> > >   technologies, by utilizing the key elements in existing standards for
> > >   contactless card technology.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 6) <!-- [rfced] We have the following questions related to Table 2.
> > >>
> > >> a) Table 2 exceeds the 72-character line limit by 5 characters. We
> are reviewing possible ways to trim the length of the table.  Please let us
> know if you have any suggestions.
> > >>
> > >> b) Please confirm that the reference to RFC 7428 is correct. We ask
> because
> > >> we do not see mention of Z-Wave, Home Automation, L2-mesh, or
> L3-mesh.
> > >> -->
> > > [Yong-Geun] Make the table 2 shorter under 72-character. Please find
> the attached XML file
> > > [Yong-Geun] The reference to RFC 7428 is correct because RFC 7428
> (Transmission of IPv6 Packets over ITU-T G.9959 Networks) is related to
> ITU-T G.9959 Networks and the ITU-T G.9959 is one of protocol for Z-wave.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 7) <!-- [rfced] "IPv6 address" is seemingly redundant.  May we update
> the
> > >> text as follows?
> > >>
> > >> Original:
> > >>      For MAC-derived IPv6 addresses, please
> > >>      refer to [RFC8163] for IPv6 address mapping examples.
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps:
> > >>      For MAC-derived IPv6 addresses, refer to [RFC8163] for mapping
> > >>      examples.
> > >> -->
> > > [Yong-Geun] Agreed.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 8) <!-- [rfced] For clarity and ease of the reader, may we update the
> text
> > >> as follows?
> > >>
> > >> Original:
> > >>      The 6LoWPAN node should
> > >>      also support [RFC8505] and use it as the default Neighbor
> > >>      Discovery method.
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps:
> > >>      The 6LoWPAN node should
> > >>      also support the registration extensions defined in [RFC8505]
> and
> > >>      use the mechanism as the default Neighbor Discovery method.
> > >> -->
> > > [Yong-Geun] Agreed.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 9) <!-- [rfced] May we update the expansion for AP-ND to match what
> appears
> > >> in RFC 8929, which expands it as "Address-Protected Neighbor
> Discovery"?
> > >>
> > >> Original:
> > >>      Address Protection for 6LoWPAN
> > >>      Neighbor Discovery (AP-ND) [RFC8928] enables Source Address
> > >>      Validation [RFC6620] and protects the address ownership against
> > >>      impersonation attacks.
> > >> -->
> > > [Yong-Geun] Agreed.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 10) <!-- [rfced] Is "objective function" needed here?  It seems
> redundant
> > >> with the expansion of MRHOF.
> > >>
> > >> Original:
> > >>   Note
> > >>   that the L3 routing in Netricity uses RPL in non-storing mode with
> > >>   the MRHOF (Minimum Rank with Hysteresis Objective Function)
> objective
> > >>   function based on their own defined Estimated Transmission Time
> (ETT)
> > >>   metric.
> > >> -->
> > > [Yong-Geun] Agreed and proposed to delete ‘objective function’.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 11) <!-- [rfced] For readability, may we update "enjoys the advantage
> of"
> > >> to "benefits from"? Or is there another way we may update?
> > >>
> > >> Original:
> > >>   Although other wired and wireless technologies are also used in
> Smart
> > >>   Grid, PLC enjoys the advantage of reliable data communication over
> > >>   electrical power lines that are already present, and the deployment
> > >>   cost can be comparable to wireless technologies.
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps:
> > >>   Although other wired and wireless technologies are also used in a
> > >>   smart grid, PLC benefits from reliable data
> > >>   communication over electrical power lines that are already present,
> > >>   and the deployment cost can be comparable to wireless technologies.
> > >> -->
> > > [Yong-Geun] Agreed.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 12) <!-- [rfced] We have the following questions related to
> references.
> > >>
> > >> a) Would you like to update the reference [BACnet] reference to the
> most
> > >> recent version from 2020?
> > >>
> > >> Current:
> > >>   [BACnet]   ASHRAE, "BACnet-A Data Communication Protocol for
> Building
> > >>              Automation and Control Networks (ANSI Approved)", ANSI/
> > >>              ASHRAE Standard 135-2016, January 2016,
> > >>              <https://www.techstreet.com/ashrae/standards/ashrae-
> > >>              135-2016?product_id=1918140#jumps>.
> > >>
> > > [Yong-Geun] Proposal :
> > >                 [BACnet]   ASHRAE, "BACnet-A Data Communication
> Protocol for Building
> > >                                Automation and Control Networks (ANSI
> Approved)", ANSI/
> > >                               ASHRAE Standard 135-2020, Ja20, October
> 2020.
> > >                              <
> https://www.techstreet.com/standards/ashrae-135-2020?product_id=2191852>.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> b) For the specification [BTCorev4.1], would you like to update to
> the most
> > >> recent version 5.4? Please review and let us know how/if we may
> update.
> > >>
> > >> Current:
> > >>   [BTCorev4.1]
> > >>              Bluetooth, "Core Specification Version 4.1", December
> > >>              2013, <https://www.bluetooth.com/specifications/specs/
> > >>              core-specification-4-1/>.
> > > [Yong-Geun] Proposal:
> > >                [BTCorev5.4]
> > >                           Bluetooth, "Core Specification Version 5.4",
> January
> > >                          2023, <
> https://www.bluetooth.com/specifications/specs/core-specification-5-4/>.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> c) The URL provided for [IPSP] directs to a page titled
> "Specifications and Documents", but there is no document named "Bluetooth
> Internet Protocol Support Profile Specification Version 1.0.0".  We are
> unable to locate a document with this title.  Please let us know how this
> entry should be updated.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Original:
> > >>   [IPSP]     Bluetooth Special Interest Group, "Bluetooth Internet
> > >>              Protocol Support Profile Specification Version 1.0.0",
> > >>              December 2014, <https://www.bluetooth.org/en-
> > >>              us/specification/adopted-specifications>.>.
> > >>
> > >> perhaps the URL should be to <
> https://www.bluetooth.com/specifications/specs/> or
> > >> <
> https://www.bluetooth.com/specifications/specs/internet-protocol-support-profile-1-0/>?
>
> > >>
> > > [Yong-Geun] Proposal:
> > >
> > >                [IPSP]     Bluetooth Special Interest Group, "Bluetooth
> Internet
> > >                            Protocol Support Profile Specification
> Version 1.0.0",
> > >                           December 2014, <
> https://www.bluetooth.com/specifications/specs/internet-protocol-support-profile-1-0/
> >.
> > >>
> > >> d) Would you like to update the provided URL for [LLCP-1.4] to the
> > >> following to lead directly to the document?
> > >>
> > >> Original:
> > >>   [LLCP-1.4] NFC Forum, "NFC Logical Link Control Protocol, Version
> > >>              1.4", NFC Forum Technical Specification , January 2021,
> > >>              <https://nfc-forum.org/build/specifications>.
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps:
> > >>   [LLCP-1.4] NFC Forum, "Logical Link Control Protocol Technical
> > >>              Specification", Version 1.4, December 2022,
> > >>          <https://nfc-forum.org/build/specifications/logical-
> > >>          link-control-protocol-technical-specification/>.
> > >> -->
> > > [Yong-Geun] Agreed.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 13) <!-- [rfced] Please note that we have updated this sentence as
> follows.
> > >> Please review and let us know if any corrections are needed.
> > >>
> > >> Original:
> > >>   *  Buffering requirements: Some 6lo use case may require higher data
> > >>      rate than the link layer technology support.
> > >>
> > >> Current:
> > >>   Buffering Requirements:
> > >>      Some 6lo use cases may require a higher data rate than the link-
> > >>      layer technology supports.
> > >> -->
> > > [Yong-Geun] Agreed.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 14) <!-- [rfced] We have the following terminology-related questions.
> > >>
> > >> a) We have updated the document to use "link-layer" (with a hyphen)
> where
> > >> the terms are acting as an adjective appearing before the noun.
> > >>
> > >> Similarly, we have updated "constrained node" to "constrained-node"
> (with a
> > >> hyphen).
> > >>
> > >> Please review and let us know if you have any concerns.
> > > [Yong-Geun] Thanks for the update. Agreed.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> b) Throughout the text, the following acronyms are missing
> expansions.
> > >> Please review and let us know if/how we may update. We provided
> possible
> > >> expansions the right.
> > >>
> > >> GPRS - General Packet Radio Service or Ground Penetrating Radar
> Systems
> > >> ISM - Industrial, Scientific, and Medical
> > >> LV PLC networks - Low-Voltage PLC networks
> > >>
> > >> Do instances of Low, Medium, and High Voltage need to be
> capitalized?
> > > [Yong-Geun] Proposal:
> > >             GPRS - General Packet Radio Service
> > >             ISM - Industrial, Scientific, and Medical
> > >             LV PLC networks - Low-Voltage PLC networks
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> c) FYI, for clarity, we added the following expansions to the provided
> > >> acronyms. Please let us know of any objections.
> > >>
> > >> FDMA - Frequency-Division Multiplex
> > >> TDMA - Time-Division Multiple Access
> > >> TDD - Time-Division Duplex
> > >> -->
> > > [Yong-Geun] Thanks for the update. Agreed.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 15) <!-- [rfced] Some author comments are present in the XML. Please
> > >> confirm that no updates related to these comments are outstanding.
> Note
> > >> that the comments will be deleted prior to publication.
> > >> -->
> > > [Yong-Geun] There are no updates related to these comments. It is
> appreciated to delete the comments.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 16) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of
> the
> > >> online Style Guide <
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
> > >> and let us know if any changes are needed.
> > >>
> > >> For example, please consider whether the following should be updated:
> > >>   Master
> > >>   Slave
> > > [Yong-Geun] The expression of ‘Master’ and ‘Slave’ is not inclusive
> language but is a technical word. I think it is O.K.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> In addition, some guides suggest avoiding "senior citizen" and
> recommend
> > >> replacements such as "older adults" or "persons 65 years and older"
> (see
> > >> information about "Age" in
> https://www.apa.org/about/apa/equity-diversity-inclusion/language-guidelines?_gl=1*w1b56*_ga*MTg0ODg5NzI0My4xNjkxNDc0OTI5*_ga_SZXLGDJGNB*MTY5MTQ3NDkyOS4xLjAuMTY5MTQ3NDkzNy4wLjAuMA..&_ga=2.202736337.1920239215.1691474929-1848897243.1691474929
> ).
> > >> -->
> > > [Yong-Geun]  I prefer the expression of ‘older adults” rather than
> ‘senior citizen’
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Thank you.
> > >>
> > >> RFC Editor
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Aug 8, 2023, at 12:20 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> > >>
> > >> *****IMPORTANT*****
> > >>
> > >> Updated 2023/08/08
> > >>
> > >> 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/rfc9453.xml
> > >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453.html
> > >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453.pdf
> > >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453.txt
> > >>
> > >> Diff file of the text:
> > >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453-diff.html
> > >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453-rfcdiff.html (side by
> side)
> > >>
> > >> Diff of the XML:
> > >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453-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/rfc9453.original.v2v3.xml
> > >>
> > >> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates
> > >> only:
> > >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9453.form.xml
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Tracking progress
> > >> -----------------
> > >>
> > >> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
> > >>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9453
> > >>
> > >> Please let us know if you have any questions.
> > >>
> > >> Thank you for your cooperation,
> > >>
> > >> RFC Editor
> > >>
> > >> --------------------------------------
> > >> RFC9453 (draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases-16)
> > >>
> > >> Title            : IPv6 over Constrained Node Networks (6lo)
> Applicability & Use cases
> > >> Author(s)        : Y. Hong, C. Gomez, Y. Choi, A. Sangi, S.
> Chakrabarti
> > >> WG Chair(s)      : Shwetha Bhandari, Carles Gomez
> > >>
> > >> Area Director(s) : Erik Kline, Éric Vyncke
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > > <draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases-16_Table2.xml>
> >
>
>