Hi Brian and Deb, Thank you for your replies. As we have received all necessary approvals, we will move this document forward in the publication process.
The AUTH48 status page of this document is available at http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9891. Thank you for your time and attention during AUTH48. Megan Ferguson RFC Production Center > On Nov 10, 2025, at 6:33 AM, Deb Cooley <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]
