Subject: [NNTP] All of our documents are now in AUTH48

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:48:31 -0700

All four of our documents are now in AUTH48, the final review of the
document editors before publication.

Clive, I think the consensus of the group is to change 2^32-1 to 2^31-1
and add the clarifying paragraph about future changes.  Ken's shorter
version seemed to have a bit more backing than the longer version.  Other
readers of the list should speak up now if they disagree.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([email-masked])             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

---

From: "Clive D.W. Feather" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:07:20 +0100

> readers of the list should speak up now if they disagree.

I'm assembling a list of changes right now, which includes these. According
to the email from the RFC Editors, these changes will need to be confirmed
by the AD (who they have as Ted Hardie / Lisa Dusseault). Can I leave you
to sort that out while I trawl through the many changes they've made?

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <[email-masked]>   | Tel:    +44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <[email-masked]>  | Fax:    +44 870 051 9937
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
THUS plc            |                            |

---

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 09:36:07 -0700

Clive D W Feather <[email-masked]> writes:

> I'm assembling a list of changes right now, which includes
> these. According to the email from the RFC Editors, these changes will
> need to be confirmed by the AD (who they have as Ted Hardie / Lisa
> Dusseault). Can I leave you to sort that out while I trawl through the
> many changes they've made?

Lisa Dusseault has approved the substantive changes (she was satisfied
that they made sense and the IESG didn't feel this required additional
review) and will be letting the RFC Editor know.

---

From: "Clive D.W. Feather" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 17:45:38 +0100

> review) and will be letting the RFC Editor know.

They had all been made in the second draft sent to me (which I've turned
round; they failed to make all the other corrections I sent them, and
sneaked in a couple of changes that need reversing).