Hi Amanda, The changes look good. Thank you!
Madison Church RFC Production Center > On Dec 19, 2025, at 1:36 PM, Amanda Baber via RT <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > These changes are complete: > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters > https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-extensiontype-values > > thanks, > Amanda > > On Wed Dec 17 19:25:24 2025, [email protected] wrote: >> IANA, >> >> Please update the note on the "Recommended" column as follows for the >> registries below: >> TLS ExtensionType Values >> TLS Cipher Suites >> TLS Supported Groups >> TLS Exporter Labels >> TLS Certificate Types >> TLS HashAlgorithm >> TLS SignatureAlgorithm >> TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers >> TLS PskKeyExchangeMode >> TLS SignatureScheme >> >> Current: >> If "Recommended" column is set to "N", it does not necessarily >> mean that it is flawed; rather, it indicates that the item either >> has not been through the IETF consensus process, has limited >> applicability, or is intended only for specific use cases. If the >> "Recommended" column is set to "D," the item is discouraged and >> SHOULD NOT or MUST NOT be used, depending upon the situation; >> consult the item's references for clarity. >> >> Updated (add "the" before "Recommended"): >> If the "Recommended" column is set to "N", it does not necessarily >> mean that it is flawed; rather, it indicates that the item either >> has not been through the IETF consensus process, has limited >> applicability, or is intended only for specific use cases. If the >> "Recommended" column is set to "D," the item is discouraged and >> SHOULD NOT or MUST NOT be used, depending upon the situation; >> consult the item's references for clarity. >> >> Thank you! >> >> Madison Church >> RFC Production Center >> >>> On Dec 17, 2025, at 6:36 AM, Sean Turner <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> spt >>> >>>> On Dec 16, 2025, at 16:20, Madison Church <[email protected] >>>> editor.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Sean and Joe, >>>> >>>> Thank you both for your replies (and apologies for the delayed reply >>>> on my end)! We have noted both of your approvals here: >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9847. >>>> >>>> We will now send our updates along to IANA. >>>> >>>> Thank you! >>>> >>>> Madison Church >>>> RFC Production Center >>>> >>>>> On Dec 16, 2025, at 3:02 PM, Sean Turner <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> And these last changes look good to me too! >>>>> >>>>> spt >>>>> >>>>>> On Dec 11, 2025, at 11:13, Madison Church <[email protected] >>>>>> editor.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> 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] >>>>>>>> editor.org> 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] >>>>>>>>> editor.org> 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 tls- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [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 <rfc-editor@rfc- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> editor.org> 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]
