Hi Chris, Could you ping Jon again about responding to your questions? Perhaps there is another email for him we should use?
Thank you, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Dec 18, 2025, at 4:05 PM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > Just a friendly reminder that we await your reply to Chris' questions. > > Thank you, > Sarah Tarrant > RFC Production Center > >> On Dec 1, 2025, at 2:50 PM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Chris and Jon, >> >> Chris - Thank you for your reply! >> >> Jon - Could you address Chris' questions below? >> >> Sincerely, >> Sarah Tarrant >> RFC Production Center >> >>> On Nov 23, 2025, at 7:38 AM, Chris Wendt <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Sarah, >>> >>> My answers are inline below, would like Jon to confirm he agrees, >>> especially the corrections in the text in question 2 and 6. >>> >>> @Jon please take a look. >>> >>> -Chris >>> >>>> On Nov 3, 2025, at 1:04 PM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Author(s), >>>> >>>> Congratulations, your document has been successfully added to the RFC >>>> Editor queue! >>>> The team at the RFC Production Center (RPC) is looking forward to working >>>> with you >>>> as your document moves forward toward publication. To help reduce >>>> processing time >>>> and improve editing accuracy, please respond to the questions below. >>>> Please confer >>>> with your coauthors (or authors of other documents if your document is in >>>> a >>>> cluster) as necessary prior to taking action in order to streamline >>>> communication. >>>> If your document has multiple authors, only one author needs to reply to >>>> this >>>> message. >>>> >>>> As you read through the rest of this email: >>>> >>>> * If you need/want to make updates to your document, we encourage you to >>>> make those >>>> changes and resubmit to the Datatracker. This allows for the easy creation >>>> of diffs, >>>> which facilitates review by interested parties (e.g., authors, ADs, doc >>>> shepherds). >>>> * If you feel no updates to the document are necessary, please reply with >>>> any >>>> applicable rationale/comments. >>>> >>>> >>>> Please note that the RPC team will not work on your document until we hear >>>> from you >>>> (that is, your document will remain in AUTH state until we receive a >>>> reply). Even >>>> if you don't have guidance or don't feel that you need to make any updates >>>> to the >>>> document, you need to let us know. After we hear from you, your document >>>> will start >>>> moving through the queue. You will be able to review and approve our >>>> updates >>>> during AUTH48. >>>> >>>> Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have at >>>> [email protected]. >>>> >>>> Thank you! >>>> The RPC Team >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> 1) As there may have been multiple updates made to the document during >>>> Last Call, >>>> please review the current version of the document: >>>> >>>> * Is the text in the Abstract still accurate? >>> >>> Yes it is still accurate. >>> >>>> * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments >>>> sections current? >>> >>> Could you update my email to [email protected]? Otherwise correct. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2) Please share any style information that could help us with editing your >>>> document. For example: >>>> >>>> * Is your document's format or its terminology based on another document? >>>> If so, please provide a pointer to that document (e.g., this document's >>>> terminology should match DNS terminology in RFC 9499). >>> >>> I think all of the references are accurate, other than being a bis document >>> to update rfc4916 which is clearly described, I think it is good. >>> >>>> * Is there a pattern of capitalization or formatting of terms? (e.g., >>>> field names >>>> should have initial capitalization; parameter names should be in double >>>> quotes; >>>> <tt/> should be used for token names; etc.) >>> >>> I did a search and capitalization does look correct. >>> >>> I did find the following clarification that should be corrected: >>> >>> "the only difference is in semantics, as the certificate signs for the >>> "dest" header field rather than the “orig” " >>> Should be: >>> "the only difference is in semantics, as the PASSporT is signed to >>> authenticate the "dest” claim value rather than the “orig” “ >>> >>> This change doesn’t change the intended/implied meaning, just more >>> accurately refers to “dest” as a PASSporT claim vs “header field” >>> >>> There is a second minor instance of this: >>> >>> "certificate in question is eligible to sign responses/requests for the >>> number in the "dest" field of the "rsp" PASSporT.” >>> Should be: >>> "certificate in question is eligible to sign responses/requests for the >>> number in the "dest" claim of the "rsp" PASSporT.” >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 3) Please review the entries in the References section carefully with >>>> the following in mind. Note that we will update as follows unless we >>>> hear otherwise at this time: >>>> >>>> * References to obsoleted RFCs will be updated to point to the current >>>> RFC on the topic in accordance with Section 4.8.6 of RFC 7322 >>>> (RFC Style Guide). >>>> >>>> * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be >>>> updated to point to the replacement I-D. >>>> >>>> * References to documents from other organizations that have been >>>> superseded will be updated to their superseding version. >>>> >>>> Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use >>>> idnits <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits>. You can also help the >>>> IETF Tools Team by testing idnits3 <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits3/> >>>> with your document and reporting any issues to them. >>> >>> Looks good. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 4) Is there any text that should be handled extra cautiously? For example, >>>> are >>>> there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? >>> >>> No >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing >>>> this >>>> document? >>> >>> No, this is pretty straight forward bis update. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 6) This document contains sourcecode: >>>> >>>> * Does the sourcecode validate? >>>> * Some sourcecode types (e.g., YANG) require certain references and/or >>>> text >>>> in the Security Considerations section. Is this information correct? >>>> * Is the sourcecode type indicated in the XML? (See information about >>>> sourcecode types.) >>> >>> There is only JSON objects in the document, I double checked the format and >>> looks accurate. >>> >>> I’m noticing one unrelated update: >>> >>> "https://www.example.com/cert.cer” >>> Should be, based on newer guidance the industry is using, this is a very >>> minor point: >>> "https://www.example.com/cert.pem” >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 7) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for editing in >>>> kramdown-rfc? >>>> If so, please let us know and provide a self-contained kramdown-rfc file. >>>> For more >>>> information about this experiment, see: >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc. >>> >>> Not for this one. >>> >>>> >>>>> On Nov 3, 2025, at 12:53 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The document draft-ietf-stir-rfc4916-update-07 has >>>>> changed from EDIT state to EDIT*A state. We thought you'd like to know. >>>>> You can also follow your document's state at >>>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php>. >>>>> For definitions of state names, please see >>>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/queue/#state_def>. >>>>> >>>>> If you have questions, please send mail to [email protected]. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> The RFC Editor Team >> >> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
