Editors, Thank you for handling these final small changes, and thanks to Deb for your time reviewing these changes.
The current and latest versions of this document look good, and I approve this RFC for publication. Brian S. On Thu, Nov 6, 2025 at 12:32 PM Megan Ferguson < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Brian and *Deb, > > Thanks for your replies and sending along the updated XML file. > > *Deb - not sure if your approval included review of this most recent file > from Brian. Please confirm your approval for the changes highlighted in > this diff: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9891-lastrfcdiff.html. > Particularly: > -the change from “target” to “integrity” in the last paragraph before > Section 5 > -the change from “BPv7 CL transport” to “the TCP CL” in the last paragraph > of Section 5.1 > > 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) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9891-lastdiff.html (last version > to this > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9891-lastrfcdiff.html (last > version to this 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 5, 2025, at 7:15 PM, Deb Cooley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I approve the additional two sections. > > > > Deb > > > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 12:50 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 > > -the first paragraph of Section 1.2 > > -the added paragraph immediately before Section 1.4 > > > > [*Note: we have added two lines to the previously requested AD review > list and updated the AD’s diff accordingly] > > > > > > Brian - thanks for the guidance and the updated XML file. We have > updated our postings accordingly. > > > > 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) > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9891-lastdiff.html > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9891-lastrfcdiff.html (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 8:07 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> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <rfc9891.xml> > > > >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
