Hi Dan and Owen,
We have noted both approvals on the AUTH48 status page (see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9908).
For the line of sourcecode in Section 3.4, the warning pertains to the text
output, where the line is 74 characters (2 over the limit of 72 characters).
txt (74 characters):
EXTENSION.&ExtnType({ExtensionSet}{@extnID})) OPTIONAL
html (71 characters):
EXTENSION.&ExtnType({ExtensionSet}{@extnID})) OPTIONAL
Thus, we have updated this line of sourcecode to our original suggestion below:
> EXTENSION.&ExtnType({ExtensionSet}{@extnID}))
> OPTIONAL
The updated files have been posted here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9908.txt
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9908.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9908.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9908.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9908-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9908-rfcdiff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9908-auth48diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9908-auth48rfcdiff.html
Once we receive approval from David, we will move this document forward in the
publication process.
Thank you!
Madison Church
RFC Production Center
> On Dec 18, 2025, at 5:03 PM, Dan Harkins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Madison,
>
> On 12/17/25 1:31 PM, Madison Church wrote:
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> Thank you for your reply! We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status
>> page (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9908).
>>
>> Please note that there are some followup questions that are still
>> outstanding. We have copied them below for convenience. Once we receive
>> approvals from Owen, David, and Dan, we will move this document forward in
>> the publication process.
>
> I agree with Michael on the changes.
>
>>>> 1. <!-- \[rfced\] We note that the following lines exceed the 72-character
>>>> limit. Please let us know how the lines should be broken/wrapped.
>>>>
>>>> AUTHORS: section 3.4, seems hard to wrap sensibly.
>>> 1) Would the following structure work?
>>>
>>> Perhaps:
>>> EXTENSION.&ExtnType({ExtensionSet}{@extnID}))
>>> OPTIONAL
>
> For this, I don't see how that exceeds the 72-character limit. I looked at
> the html page and it's significantly less than the text before and after it.
> I see a note from rfced in the xml about wrapping but, again, I don't see
> what's exceeding 72 characters.
>
>>>> 1. <!--\[rfced\] Does Appendix A provide the ASN.1 module for the
>>>> Extension Request Template attribute? Or is it provided for the
>>>> Certification Request Information Template attribute only?
>>>>
>>>> Original:
>>>> This appendix provides an ASN.1 module \[X.680\] for the Certification
>>>> Request Information Template attribute, and it follows the
>>>> conventions established in \[RFC5911\], \[RFC5912\], and \[RFC6268\].
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps:
>>>> This appendix provides an ASN.1 module \[X.680\] for the Certification
>>>> Request Information Template and Extension Request Template
>>>> attributes, and it follows the conventions established in \[RFC5911\],
>>>> \[RFC5912\], and \[RFC6268\].
>>>> -->
>>>>
>>>> AUTHORS: I think yes. NOT QUITE SURE.
>>> 2) We ask to update this text because of the following note in the IANA
>>> Section:
>>> "For the Certification Request Information Template and Extension Request
>>> Template attributes in Appendix A…"
>>>
>>> We have updated to the Perhaps text above.
>
> I think that's fine. So please put me as a Y in the AUTH48 status page.
>
> The 72 character wrapping issue seems editorial to me and not enough to
> change the Y.
>
> regards,
>
> Dan.
>
> --
> "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to
> escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
>
>
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
