Hi Sean and Joe, This is a friendly reminder that we await your approvals for the formatting of this document. 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 4:15 PM, Sean Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]
