I pulled the md file so I can more easily make the repo match final product.
spt > On Dec 4, 2025, at 15:05, Madison Church <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Joe and Sean, > > We have converted the kramdown-rfc file to RFCXML. For formatting changes, we > have updated relevant URLs to be clickable in the HTML and PDF outputs. In > addition to formatting, we have updated the date and added a couple of > missing periods in a few unordered lists throughout the document (see > Sections 4 and 6: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-lastdiff.html). > > Please review the XML file and its TXT, HTML, and PDF outputs, and let us > know if any changes are required or if you approve the RFC for publication. > While this is your approval of the XML and its outputs, we consider this your > final assent that the document is ready for publication. To request changes > or approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email. Please use > ‘REPLY ALL’, as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your > approval. > > Note that we will only make changes in the XML file from this point on. > > XML file: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.xml > > Output files: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.html > > Lastdiff of the text (shows latest changes): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-lastdiff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Comprehensive 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) > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9847 > > Thank you! > Madison Church > RFC Production Center > >> On Dec 4, 2025, at 1:56 PM, Madison Church <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Joe, >> >> Thank you for your reply! We have marked your approval for the contents of >> this document (see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9847). >> >> We will now move on to the second part of the kramdown-rfc AUTH48 process, >> which will be sent in a separate email shortly. >> >> Thank you! >> >> Madison Church >> RFC Production Center >> >>> On Dec 3, 2025, at 4:17 PM, Joseph Salowey <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Thank you Madison. I approve of the document's content. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Joe >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 6:54 AM Madison Church >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi Sean, >>> >>> Thank you for your reply! We have marked your approval for the document’s >>> content (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9847). Once we receive >>> Joe’s approval for the content of the document, we will convert the >>> document to XML to make any remaining formatting updates and ask for >>> formatting approvals at that time. >>> >>> Thank you! >>> >>> Madison Church >>> RFC Production Center >>> >>>> On Dec 1, 2025, at 8:28 AM, Sean Turner <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> 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]
