Hi Sean, Thank you for your reply! Please see inline.
> On Nov 26, 2025, at 10:55 AM, Sean Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > > Madison, > > Hi! Question about formatting: > > I see that the asides were converted to quotes: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.html#name-recommended-note > and > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.html#name-tls-exporter-labels-registr > In other RFCs they stayed as asides: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9881.html#name-ml-dsa-public-keys-in-pkix > > Why are they different? Thank you for asking. We use {:quote} instead of {:aside} for notes that appear in an IANA registry because the document is quoting the IANA registry. We do not believe these fit the description of {:aside} (<aside> in XML), which is defined as “a container for content that is semantically less important or tangential to the content that surrounds it". > One other formatting thing: > > In s7: s/{{RFC8447, Section 17}}/{{Section 17 of RFC8447}} We have updated as requested! See updated files below. The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.md The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) Markdown diffs: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-md-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-md-rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-md-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-md-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) For the AUTH48 status of this document, see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9847. We will await content approvals from each author prior to moving forward with formatting updates. For details of the AUTH48 process in kramdown-rfc (including the two-part approval process), see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc. Thank you! Madison Church RFC Production Center > spt > >> On Nov 25, 2025, at 11:06, Madison Church <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Authors, >> >> This is a friendly reminder that we have yet to hear back from you regarding >> this document’s readiness for publication. >> >> Note that we have made additional updates to the IANA Considerations section >> based on a note that we received from IANA. Please review: >>> The actions have all been completed, but the last three paragraphs of >>> Section 18 (the IANA Considerations section) need to be removed. The >>> authors decided to stop sending requesters to the mailing list they’re >>> referring to in that section and instead send them directly to IANA. (In >>> fact, Rich is talking about shutting that [email protected] list down >>> entirely, which is what drew my attention to this.) The note that’s been >>> pasted into that section is actually an old note that we removed from the >>> registry as we were performing the actions.Our understanding is that the >>> section should just read, “This document is entirely about changes to >>> TLS-related IANA registries.” >> >> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.txt >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.xml >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.md >> >> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-auth48diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> >> Markdown diffs: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-md-diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-md-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-md-auth48diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-md-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by >> side) >> >> For the AUTH48 status of this document, see: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9847. >> >> Please review the contents of the document carefully. Contact us with any >> further updates or with your approval of the document’s contents in its >> current form. We will await approvals from each author prior to moving >> forward with formatting updates. >> >> For details of the AUTH48 process in kramdown-rfc (including the two-part >> approval process), see >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc. >> >> Thank you! >> >> Madison Church >> RFC Production Center >> >>> On Nov 17, 2025, at 2:39 PM, Madison Church <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Joe, >>> >>> Thank you for your reply! We have updated the document accordingly and have >>> no further questions related to content at this time. >>> >>> Please review the contents of the document carefully. Contact us with any >>> further updates or with your approval of the document’s contents in its >>> current form. We will await approvals from each author prior to moving >>> forward with formatting updates. >>> >>> For details of the AUTH48 process in kramdown-rfc (including the two-part >>> approval process), see >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc. >>> >>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.txt >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.pdf >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.xml >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.md >>> >>> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-diff.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-auth48diff.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by >>> side) >>> >>> Markdown diffs: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-md-diff.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-md-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-md-auth48diff.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-md-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by >>> side) >>> >>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9847 >>> >>> Thank you! >>> >>> Madison Church >>> RFC Production Center >>> >>>> On Nov 15, 2025, at 8:20 PM, Joseph Salowey <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Attached is an updated markdown file, did we have this in a github repo as >>>> well? Might be easier to make comments and suggest changes through PRs. >>>> >>>> I only made one substantive change to update my Organization from Venafi >>>> to CyberArk. >>>> >>>> I also ran fix-lint to remove some of the trailing whitespace so I can >>>> build it. >>>> >>>> I also modified the text in comment 5 to apply the "Singular" option which >>>> is what I think is the best. >>>> >>>> I didn't find any issues with inclusive language. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Joe >>>> >>>> On Sat, Nov 15, 2025 at 4:53 PM Joseph Salowey <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> I'm in the process of document review. Questions answered below. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Joe >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 4:19 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 >>>> --> >>>> >>>> [Joe] This looks good to me >>>> >>>> >>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in >>>> the title) >>>> for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> >>>> >>>> >>>> [Joe]I don't think there are additional keywords >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> --> >>>> >>>> >>>> [Joe] OK >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> --> >>>> >>>> >>>> [Joe] The offending sentence no longer appears in the document since the >>>> IANA action has already been completed. >>>> The registry has be updated with the correct name since TLS 1.3. >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> --> >>>> >>>> >>>> [Joe] I don't think it changes the intent of the section. I have a >>>> slight preference for the Singular, but either will do. >>>> >>>> 6) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have reordered the values in Table 1 to reflect >>>> how they are listed in the "TLS ExtensionType Values" registry. >>>> --> >>>> >>>> >>>> [Joe] Thank you >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> --> >>>> >>>> [Joe] Yes >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> --> >>>> >>>> >>>> [Joe] This looks good to me >>>> >>>> 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) >>>> --> >>>> >>>> >>>> [Joe] I believe this is correct. >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> --> >>>> >>>> [Joe] This looks good, Thank you >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> --> >>>> >>>> >>>> [Joe] OK will review. >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> <rfc9847.md> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
