Authors, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file.
1) <!-- [rfced] Note that we have updated the short title, which appears in the running header in the PDF output, as follows. Please let us know any objections. Original: (D)TLS IANA Registry Updates Current: TLS and DTLS IANA Registry Updates --> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> 3) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We will do the following when we convert the file to RFCXML: - Update relevant URLs to be clickable in the HTML and PDF outputs --> 4) <!-- [rfced] Because this document updates RFC 8447, please review the errata reported for RFC 8447 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc8447) and let us know if you confirm our opinion that none of them are relevant to the content of this document. --> 5) <!-- [rfced] In the sentence below, is the intention to have consensus to leave one item or multiple items marked? Original: The IETF might have consensus to leave an items marked as "N" on the basis of its having limited applicability or usage constraints. Perhaps (Singular): The IETF might have consensus to leave an item marked as "N" on the basis of the item having limited applicability or usage constraints. Or (Plural): The IETF might have consensus to leave items marked as "N" on the basis of the items having limited applicability or usage constraints. --> 6) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have reordered the values in Table 1 to reflect how they are listed in the "TLS ExtensionType Values" registry. --> 7) <!--[rfced] May we remove this sentence from the end of Section 14? This action is already listed in Section 7. Original: IANA is requested to rename the "Note" column to "Comment" column in TLS Exporter Labels registry. --> 8) <!--[rfced] IANA provided the following note when they notified us that their actions were complete: NOTE: Some text at the end of the IANA Considerations section concerning request submission needs to be removed or replaced. Details at the end of the list of actions. Per this note and to reflect what appears in the TLS-related IANA registries, we have updated the text as shown below. Please let us know if any changes are needed. Original: Requests for assignments from the registry's Specification Required range should be sent to the mailing list described in [This RFC, Section 16]. If approved, designated experts should notify IANA within three weeks. For assistance, please contact [email protected]. Current: | Note: Requests for registration in the "Specification Required" | [RFC8126] range should be sent to [email protected] or submitted via | IANA's application form, per [RFC 9847]. IANA will forward the | request to the expert mailing list described in [RFC8447], | Section 17 and track its progress. See the registration procedure | table below for more information. --> 9) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added an expansion for the following abbreviation per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness. International Data Encryption Algorithm (IDEA) --> 10) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have updated the following terms to the form on the right to match other documents in Cluster 430. Please let us know any objections. ciphersuite(s) > cipher suite(s) code points > codepoints --> 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. Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should still be reviewed as a best practice. --> Thank you. Madison Church and Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center On Oct 30, 2025, at 4:18 PM, [email protected] wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/10/30 RFC Author(s): Your document has now entered AUTH48. The document was edited in kramdown-rfc as part of the RPC pilot test (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc). Please review the procedures for AUTH48 using kramdown-rfc: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_instructions_completing_auth48_using_kramdown Once your document has completed AUTH48, it will be published as an RFC. Files ----- The files are available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.md https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the kramdown: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-md-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-md-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9847 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC9847 (draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis-15) Title : IANA Registry Updates for TLS and DTLS Author(s) : J. Salowey, S. Turner WG Chair(s) : Joseph A. Salowey, Sean Turner, Deirdre Connolly Area Director(s) : Deb Cooley, Paul Wouters -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
