Hi Sean and Joe,

This is a friendly weekly reminder that we await your response to the AUTH48 
questions sent on October 30th.

The AUTH48 status page of this document is viewable at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9847

We hope you had a productive IETF! 

Thank you,
Madison Church
RFC Production Center

> On Nov 6, 2025, at 8:52 AM, Sean Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi! I did start an email. Hope to get through it today.
> 
> spt
> 
>> On Nov 6, 2025, at 08:48, Madison Church <[email protected]> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> 
>> This is a friendly weekly reminder that this document awaits your attention. 
>>  Please review the document-specific questions and AUTH48 announcement. Let 
>> us know if we can be of assistance as you begin the AUTH48 review process.
>> 
>> The AUTH48 status page of this document is viewable at:
>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9847
>> 
>> The AUTH48 FAQs are available at:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/#auth48
>> 
>> We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
>> 
>> Thank you, and happy IETF week!
>> 
>> Madison Church
>> RFC Production Center
>> 
>>> On Oct 30, 2025, at 7:19 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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]

Reply via email to