I approve. Deb
On Tue, Nov 4, 2025 at 10:07 PM Brian Sipos <[email protected]> wrote: > Editors, > For the immediate questions: > 1) Yes, I think the Response Object should be capitalized as a proper noun > for consistency. > 2) I think your edit is correct and clarifies the meaning of the statement. > 3) I think your edits look consistent to me, using "EID" generally > throughout except for the initial terminology definition. > > I have attached a new source with some very minor changes, specifically > for 1 above and referencing the sources of external CDDL rules. I think > these will be the final ones as I don't see any other tweaks needed. > > On Tue, Nov 4, 2025 at 3:15 PM Megan Ferguson < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Brian (and *Deb), >> >> *Deb - please review and approve the changes to the following that are >> highlighted in this diff: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9891-ad-diff.html >> >> -the first paragraph of Section 1.5, >> -the last few paragraphs of Section 3.3, >> -the second paragraph of Section 5, >> -the last two paragraphs of Section 5.1, >> -paragraphs 2 and 3 of Section 6.2 >> >> Brian - Thanks for your response and the updated file. We have further >> updated the file you submitted per your responses and posted the new >> versions (see below). >> >> We had a few further questions/comments based on your reply: >> >> 1) We updated the capping of "Challenge Object" to appear consistently >> with initial caps; should any update to "response object" be made to match >> (i.e., "Response Object”) to mirror the use of "Challenge Bundle" and >> "Response Bundle"? >> >> 2) We have added the word “Object” after “Challenge” in the text below. >> Please let us know if this is in error: >> >> Old: >> The DTN Node ID Challenge SHALL only be allowed for an EID... >> >> New: >> The DTN Node ID Challenge Object SHALL only be allowed for an EID… >> >> 3) We have updated cases of Endpoint ID to appear as EID consistently >> throughout the document. Please review as there was some overlap between >> our query regarding using the abbreviation on subsequent uses and our >> further query regarding the terms: >> >> BundleEID vs. Bundle EID vs. Bundle Endpoint ID >> >> Please review the files carefully as we do not make changes after >> publication. >> >> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9891.txt >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9891.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9891.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9891.xml >> >> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9891-diff.html (comprehensive >> diff) >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9891-rfcdiff.html >> (comprehensive side by side) >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9891-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 >> changes only) >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9891-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 >> side by side) >> >> Please contact us with any further updates/questions/comments you may >> have. >> >> We will await approvals from each of the parties listed on the AUTH48 >> status page prior to moving forward to publication. >> >> The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: >> >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9891 >> >> Thank you. >> >> Megan Ferguson >> RFC Production Center >> >> >> >> > On Nov 4, 2025, at 10:35 AM, Brian Sipos <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > Editors, >> > Thank you for these initial edits and comments. I am attaching an >> updated XML which includes in-line comment responses with prefix "BS:" and >> includes edits that I believe address all of the comments. I'm also >> informally tracking these edits on the original source repository [1]. I >> believe that all of these changes are still editorial and do not represent >> any technical changes, please advise if any seem problematic. >> > >> > One important change that I needed to make was to include a trailing >> newline in the CDDL fragments (sourcecode of type "cddl") so that the >> extraction and concatenation of these fragments works properly as described >> in Section 1.3. I'm only mentioning it here because I imagine the editors >> need to deal with other documents containing CDDL fragments and it is a >> useful consideration. >> > >> > Thanks again, >> > Brian S. >> > >> > [1] >> https://github.com/BrianSipos/acme-dtnnodeid/blob/main/spec/rfc9891.xml >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Nov 3, 2025 at 2:03 PM <[email protected]> wrote: >> > *****IMPORTANT***** >> > >> > Updated 2025/11/03 >> > >> > RFC Author(s): >> > -------------- >> > >> > Instructions for Completing AUTH48 >> > >> > Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and >> > approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. >> > If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies >> > available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). >> > >> > You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties >> > (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing >> > your approval. >> > >> > Planning your review >> > --------------------- >> > >> > Please review the following aspects of your document: >> > >> > * RFC Editor questions >> > >> > Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor >> > that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as >> > follows: >> > >> > <!-- [rfced] ... --> >> > >> > These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. >> > >> > * Changes submitted by coauthors >> > >> > Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your >> > coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you >> > agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. >> > >> > * Content >> > >> > Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot >> > change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention >> to: >> > - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) >> > - contact information >> > - references >> > >> > * Copyright notices and legends >> > >> > Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in >> > RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions >> > (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). >> > >> > * Semantic markup >> > >> > Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of >> > content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> >> > and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at >> > <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. >> > >> > * Formatted output >> > >> > Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the >> > formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is >> > reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting >> > limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. >> > >> > >> > Submitting changes >> > ------------------ >> > >> > To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all >> > the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties >> > include: >> > >> > * your coauthors >> > >> > * [email protected] (the RPC team) >> > >> > * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., >> > IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the >> > responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). >> > >> > * [email protected], which is a new archival mailing >> list >> > to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion >> > list: >> > >> > * More info: >> > >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc >> > >> > * The archive itself: >> > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ >> > >> > * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out >> > of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive >> matter). >> > If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you >> > have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, >> > [email protected] will be re-added to the CC list >> and >> > its addition will be noted at the top of the message. >> > >> > You may submit your changes in one of two ways: >> > >> > An update to the provided XML file >> > — OR — >> > An explicit list of changes in this format >> > >> > Section # (or indicate Global) >> > >> > OLD: >> > old text >> > >> > NEW: >> > new text >> > >> > You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit >> > list of changes, as either form is sufficient. >> > >> > We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem >> > beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of >> text, >> > and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found >> in >> > the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream >> manager. >> > >> > >> > Approving for publication >> > -------------------------- >> > >> > To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating >> > that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, >> > as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. >> > >> > >> > Files >> > ----- >> > >> > The files are available here: >> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9891.xml >> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9891.html >> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9891.pdf >> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9891.txt >> > >> > Diff file of the text: >> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9891-diff.html >> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9891-rfcdiff.html (side by >> side) >> > >> > Diff of the XML: >> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9891-xmldiff1.html >> > >> > >> > Tracking progress >> > ----------------- >> > >> > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: >> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9891 >> > >> > Please let us know if you have any questions. >> > >> > Thank you for your cooperation, >> > >> > RFC Editor >> > >> > -------------------------------------- >> > RFC9891 (draft-ietf-acme-dtnnodeid-18) >> > >> > Title : Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME) >> Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN) Node ID Validation Extension >> > Author(s) : B. Sipos >> > WG Chair(s) : Yoav Nir, Mike Ounsworth >> > >> > Area Director(s) : Deb Cooley, Paul Wouters >> > >> > >> > <rfc9891.xml> >> >> >> >> >> >>
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
