Hi Rich, Thank you for your review. Regarding this item:
> > 2) [rfced] We see that the following TLS registries have been added … but > > there are no > > comments for the entries. Please review. > > > TLS SSLKEYLOGFILE Labels [draft-ietf-tls-keylogfile-05][RFC9847] > > TLS RRC Message Types [draft-ietf-tls-dtls-rrc-20] > > Neither table MUST have a Commments or Notes column, although I am a fan of > consistency. The rationale for saying not required is: SSLKEYLOGFILE labels > only output for off-line analysis and RRC messages are only for DTLS. I > would prefer to be consistent, but if that’s a problem, I can live without > changing those tables. Let me know if we need to change this doc. There is a comments column for each registry, but we don’t think there are comments indicating "whether the actions defined here are applicable”. It sounds like no comments are needed. There is no change needed for this document; we were trying to gauge whether there may be changes needed for draft-ietf-tls-keylogfile or draft-ietf-tls-dtls-rrc. Thanks for your help with this. We have updated the document as described below. The current files are available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9851.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9851.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9851.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9851.html AUTH48 diffs: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9851-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9851-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) Comprehensive diffs: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9851-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9851-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Please review the updates in full and let us know if any updates are needed or if you approve the RFC for publication. Sandy Ginoza RFC Production Center > On Jan 5, 2026, at 2:48 PM, Salz, Rich <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I trimmed down the original message; if my response isn’t clear, please let > me know. > > > 1) <!-- [rfced] For readability, we suggest the following update. If > > accepted, we will update similar text in Section 1 as well. > > The proposed change is fine. > > > > 2) [rfced] We see that the following TLS registries have been added … but > > there are no > > comments for the entries. Please review. > > > TLS SSLKEYLOGFILE Labels [draft-ietf-tls-keylogfile-05][RFC9847] > > TLS RRC Message Types [draft-ietf-tls-dtls-rrc-20] > > Neither table MUST have a Commments or Notes column, although I am a fan of > consistency. The rationale for saying not required is: SSLKEYLOGFILE labels > only output for off-line analysis and RRC messages are only for DTLS. I > would prefer to be consistent, but if that’s a problem, I can live without > changing those tables. Let me know if we need to change this doc. > > > 3) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the > > online Style Guide > > No changes seem to be required. > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
