Re: [C430] RFC 9000 - Re: [IANA #1196209] Protocol Action: 'QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed and Secure Transport' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-quic-transport-34.txt)

[Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Martin.  We've made the fix on our end and reposted the files.  (Even though it's a small update, we made a new iteration.)

   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9000.txt
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9000.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9000.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9000.xml
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9000-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9000-rfcdiff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9000-auth48diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9000-lastdiff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9000-lastrfcdiff.html

   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9000-xmldiff1.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9000-xmldiff2.html

We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page:

   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9000

Thank you!

RFC Editor/lb


> On May 19, 2021, at 3:10 PM, Martin Thomson via C430 <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Please fix this.  We're now at the point where I think you should hold the pen on changes (provided that they remain of this sort of size).
> 
> I'll make the same changes on our end so we keep up.
> 
> I've now reviewed all the changes and approve of the current document.  
> 
> (I understand that this is now mangled by preptool, which I don't like, but that's something I need to take up elsewhere.)
> 
> On Thu, May 20, 2021, at 03:24, Lynne Bartholomew via C430 wrote:
>> Hi, Martin.
>> 
>> If you are currently updating this document, would you please change 
>> the non-ASCII quote before the "10" back to an ASCII quote?
>> 
>> 7509           <refcontent>Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGCOMM 
>> conference on Internet measurement - IMC ‘10</refcontent>
>> 
>> If you're not currently working on it, we will be happy to fix it and 
>> repost the files.
>> 
>> Thank you!
>> 
>> RFC Editor/lb
>> 
>> 
>>> On May 18, 2021, at 5:39 PM, Lynne Bartholomew via C430 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi, Martin.
>>> 
>>> We updated the RFC URLs in this document and also added the zero-width space to the CRYPTO_ERROR entry in Table 7.
>>> 
>>> The latest files are posted here:
>>> 
>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9000.txt
>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9000.pdf
>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9000.html
>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9000.xml
>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9000-diff.html
>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9000-rfcdiff.html
>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9000-auth48diff.html
>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9000-lastdiff.html
>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9000-lastrfcdiff.html
>>> 
>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9000-xmldiff1.html
>>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9000-xmldiff2.html
>>> 
>>> Thank you!
>>> 
>>> RFC Editor/lb
>>> 
>>>> On May 18, 2021, at 5:16 PM, Martin Thomson via C430 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> FWIW, I can put the change into source, but it runs into https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/548 (it isn't kramdown); so we won't be able to reproduce this on our end.
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, May 19, 2021, at 10:12, Martin Thomson via C430 wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, May 19, 2021, at 09:37, Lynne Bartholomew via C430 wrote:
>>>>>> Hi, Martin.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Apologies for the oversight previously -- we think that in line with 
>>>>>> updates to Table 3 and the entry in Section 20.1 for CRYPTO_ERROR, the 
>>>>>> spaces around the "-" in the CRYPTO_ERROR row in Table 7 should be 
>>>>>> removed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yeah, I wanted to do that, but I didn't want to break the table and had 
>>>>> no means to do zero-width spaces (kramdown doesn't support that as far 
>>>>> as I'm aware).
>>>>> 
>>>>> If you can add the zero-width space, that would be OK.  The output 
>>>>> looks fine.  (I'll try to wrestle the character into our source as 
>>>>> well.)
>>>>> 
>>>>> <br/> seems like the wrong solution here.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Martin
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> C430 mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/c430
>>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> C430 mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/c430
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> C430 mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/c430
>>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> C430 mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/c430
>> 
> -- 
> C430 mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/c430