Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9505 <draft-irtf-pearg-censorship-10> for your review

[Alice Russo <[e-mail]>]

Joe,

Re:
> I suspect the RFC Editor is recovering from a successful IETF 118 in Prague!


Indeed; thank you for your patience.

The document has been updated as requested; please see the follow-up below. The files are here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9505.txt
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9505.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9505.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9505.xml

This diff shows only the most recent changes:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9505-lastdiff.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9505-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side)

This diff shows all changes from the Internet-Draft:
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9505-diff.html
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9505-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Re:
> Ideally, we would promote the Contributors section to Acknowledgments so that it appears before the extensive references. I can understand if that last one is too much!

We have moved the text to the "Acknowledgments"; however, it still appears after the references. (The order of the sections is as per the RFC Style Guide: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7322#section-4)

Regarding approval, you wrote:
>  (I sent mine with the last edits I sent).


Your approval has been recorded; however, we suggest reviewing that your changes have been made as requested. 

At this point, we await approval from Nick. (We did receive the 'what's needed from me' mail on 9 Nov.) The AUTH48 status page is here:
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9505

Thank you.
RFC Editor/ar

> On Nov 9, 2023, at 6:12 PM, Dr. Joseph Lorenzo Hall <hall=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi! Thank you all for your patience. I've found a few things that would be great to correct in the current text:
> 
> Section 1
> 
> The term "martial" is a better indicator of physical and kinetic power than "military" which might not be construed as broadly as to include law enforcement and armed forces.
> 
> OLD
> 
> legal, military, or other means
> 
> NEW
> 
> legal, martial, or other means
> 
> Section 3
> 
> typo
> 
> OLD
> 
> protection laaw across
> 
> NEW
> 
> protection law across
> 
> Section 5.3.2
> 
> The reference here to a MANRS blog entry by Aftab Siddiqui is merely noted as "[MANRS]" as the reference identifier. MANRS is a very large project, of which the blog is only one narrow part. I'd prefer the reference identifier here to be "[MANRS-Siddiqui]" or "[Siddiqui-2022]" since the MANRS blog hosts blog posts by many technical writers.
> 
> OLD
> 
> prefix more than once [MANRS].
> 
> NEW
> 
> prefix more than once [Siddiqui-2022].
> 
> (and the reference at the end changed accordingly)
> 
> Section Contributors
> 
> I have two requests here. First, as an employee of the Internet Society, the legal entity to which IETF/IRTF derives it's nonprofit status and legal home, we are forbidden from contributing to IETF/IRTF on behalf of the Internet Society, it's a direct conflict. However, we are allowed to participate as individuals. In the IASA 2.0 document, it was necessary to for me to add the following disclaimer to the Acknowledgments section (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8711.html#name-acknowledgments ):
> 
> "Coauthor Hall performed work on this document before employment at the Internet Society, and his affiliation listed in this document is for identification purposes only."
> 
> So, I would, at a minimum, like to add this same disclaimer to the Contributors section. Ideally, we would promote the Contributors section to Acknowledgments so that it appears before the extensive references. I can understand if that last one is too much!
> 
> best, Joe
> 
> 
> --
> JLH, Internet Society, [e-mail] ( https://josephhall.org/ )
> From: Alice Russo <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 20:17
> To: Dr. Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Mallory Knodel <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9505 <draft-irtf-pearg-censorship-10> for your review
>  
> Joseph,
> 
> >From this side, no open questions. The Doc Shepherd approval is considered complete on the Section 5.1.1 question because the sentence was updated as Shivan suggested ('Iran' was removed). 
> 
> The files are here:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9505.txt
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9505.pdf
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9505.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9505.xml
> 
> This diff shows only the most recent changes:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9505-lastdiff.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9505-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side)
> 
> This diff shows all changes from the Internet-Draft:
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9505-diff.html
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9505-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
> 
> We await any further changes -- and approvals -- from each author before continuing the publication process. This page shows the AUTH48 status of your document:
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9505
> 
> Thank you.
> RFC Editor/ar
> 
> > On Nov 1, 2023, at 3:00 PM, Dr. Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > That appears to be the same, good find!
> > 
> > All, I'm going on vacation starting tomorrow until the following Tuesday and I'll find some time on the planes involved to resolve as many of these that are outstanding. I'm hoping we can then quickly get all author sign-offs.
> > 
> > --
> > JLH, Internet Society, [e-mail] ( https://josephhall.org/ )
> > From: Mallory Knodel <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Monday, October 30, 2023 18:34
> > To: Alice Russo <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<[e-mail]>; Dr. Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Re: [Doc Shepherd] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9505 <draft-irtf-pearg-censorship-10> for your review
> >  
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Sorry for the top post. I was browsing this Sandvine research doc that is not the 2014 citation (this is from 2015) but presumably it contains what was originally cited? 
> > 
> > https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nirmala-Svsg/post/Anybody-working-on-Internet-traffic-classification/attachment/59d63a5779197b807799782d/AS%3A405810988503040%401473764287142/download/traffic-classification-identifying-and-measuring-internet-traffic.pdf
> > 
> > Joe I think it was from and early version of the draft so you could tell us if this document could replace the original. 
> > 
> > -M