> On Nov 26, 2025, at 14:32, Madison Church <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> 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".
Okay well that makes total sense ;)
>> 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.
I approve the formatting for this I-D.
I also approve the contents for this I-D.
spt
> 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]
