[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9977 <draft-ietf-opsawg-prefix-lengths-14> for your review

[Randy Bush <[e-mail]>]

hi rfced,

> Original:
> Therefore, there are a multitude of variations of different end-site
> prefix length present in the Internet.
> 
> Current:
> Therefore, there are many variations of end-site prefix lengths
> present in the Internet.
> -->

either ok with me

> 2) <!--[rfced] Please clarify the antecedent of "this":
> 
> Original:
> In all places Carrier-Grade NAT or CGN is used in this document, this
> applies to proxies as well.
> -->

s/this/this specification/  or this document, whatever

> 3) <!--[rfced] We had a few questions about the following text:
> 
> 
> Original:
> Prefix length files can contain sub-prefixes entries of a parent
> prefix, which needs to be taken into account when processing these
> files.
> 
> a) Please confirm the use of the plural "sub-prefixes".

common term, ok

> Perhaps:
> Prefix length files can contain sub-prefix entries of a parent
> prefix,..
> 
> b) Might this sentence be rephrased as:
> 
> Perhaps:
> Prefix length files can contain sub-prefix entries of a parent prefix; this needs to be taken into account when processing these files.
> 
> -->

i do not see value in the added text.  the whole document describes
things which should be taken into account

> 4) <!--[rfced] Please confirm that the Implementation Status section
>      should remain in the document for publication (see RFC 7942). -->

yes, confirmed.  there has been a lot of net blah blah

> 5) <!--[rfced] FYI - we have cut the following text as we believe that
>      this is referring to updating the Reference column.  If there was
>      some other intent (e.g., adding this document as a reference for
>      the entire registry), please let us know.
> 
> Original:
> On publication of this document,
>    the [RFC-TBD] reference needs to be changed to the RFC number
>    assigned to this document.
> 
> and
> 
> On publication of this document,
>    the [RFC-TBD] reference needs to be changed to the RFC number
>    assigned to this document.
> 
> -->

removal seems appropriate

> 6) <!-- [rfced] FYI: We made some formatting edits to [RIPE81]
> and [RIPE181] to include the authors for those documents in the
> reference entries.
> 
> Original:
>    [RIPE181]  RIPE NCC, "Representation Of IP Routing Policies In A
>               Routing Registry", October 1994,
>               <https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-181>.
> 
>    [RIPE81]   RIPE NCC, "Representation Of IP Routing Policies In The
>               RIPE Database", February 1993,
>               <https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-081>.
> 
> Current:
>    [RIPE181]  Bates, T., Gerich, E., Joncheray, L., Jouanigot, J.,
>               Karrenberg, D., Terpstra, M., and J. Yu, "Representation
>               Of IP Routing Policies In A Routing Registry", RIPE-181,
>               October 1994,
>               <https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-181>.
> 
>    [RIPE81]   Bates, T., Jouanigot, J., Karrenberg, D., Lothberg, P.,
>               and M. Terpstra, "Representation Of IP Routing Policies In
>               The RIPE Database", RIPE-081, February 1993,
>               <https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-081>.
> 
> -->

excellent.  thanks.

> 7) <!-- [rfced] Regarding reference entries [INET6NUM] and [INETNUM]:
> 
> The original URLs for [INET6NUM] and [INETNUM] point to a page with an
> "Sorry, we can't seem to find the page you're looking for" error
> message.
> 
> We found the following URL that seems to contain the information from
> the original URLs:
> https://docs.db.ripe.net/RPSL-Object-Types/Descriptions-of-Primary-Objects
> 
> Is this the appropriate URL for these references?
> -->

yes.  the ncc has a team of webbies who update things.  they do try not
to break urls, but do not always succeed.

> 8) <!-- [rfced] Regarding reference entry [PREFIXLEN-FINDER:] Please review. References to GitHub
> repositories require a commit hash (see:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#ref_repo) The original
> date for this reference - June 2021 - does not appear in this
> repositories commit history
> (https://github.com/massimocandela/prefixlen-finder/commits/main/) May
> we update this reference to use the most recent commit date and commit
> hash?
> 
> Current:
>    [PREFIXLEN-FINDER]
>               "prefixlen-finder", June 2021,
>               <https://github.com/massimocandela/prefixlen-finder>.
> Perhaps:
>    [PREFIXLEN-FINDER]
>               "prefixlen-finder", commit fa70e6b, 3 June 2025,
>               <https://github.com/massimocandela/prefixlen-finder>.
> -->

i defer to massimo on this one

> 9) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions/comments related to
>      abbreviation use throughout the document:
> 
> a) May we expand CRL as Certificate Revocation List per RFC 5280?
> 
> b) FYI - we have removed subsequent expansions of abbreviations per
> the guidance at
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#exp_abbrev.
> 
> -->

wfm

> 10) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions/comments related to terminology used throughout the document:
> 
> a) we have used the hyphenated end-site throughout; please let us know any objections.
> 
> -->

wfm

> 11) <!-- [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.  Updates of this nature
> typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for
> readers.

i think we tried to use non-genered etc language.  did you notice
failures?

thanks!!

randy