I approve the current draft for publication. Deb
On Thu, Nov 6, 2025 at 2:16 PM Brian Sipos <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]
