Hi Russ and Sean, Thank you for your replies. We’ve updated the document accordingly.
The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9916.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9916.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9916.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9916.pdf The relevant diff files have been posted here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9916-diff.html (comprehensive diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9916-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9916-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 changes side by side) Please review the document carefully and contact us with any further updates you may have. Note that we do not make changes once a document is published as an RFC. We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status page below prior to moving this document forward in the publication process. For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9916 Thank you, Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On Jan 16, 2026, at 12:01 PM, Sean Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > > Agreed to all 3. > > spt > >> On Jan 16, 2026, at 13:56, Russ Housley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Dear RFC Editor: >> >>> 1) <!--[rfced] Regarding the title, even though "PCEPS" is explained in the >>> abstract, please consider updating the title so that at least "PCEP" is >>> expanded. >>> >>> Original: >>> Updates for PCEPS: TLS Connection Establishment Restrictions >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> Updates to the Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the >>> Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) >> >> The proposed title looks fine to me. >> >> >>> 2) <!--[rfced] May we clarify the citation to RFC 9325 by adding "TLS/DTLS >>> recommendations" to the sentence below? >>> >>> Original: >>> The Security Considerations of PCEP [RFC5440], [RFC8231], [RFC8253], >>> [RFC8281], and [RFC8283]; TLS 1.2 [RFC5246]; TLS 1.3 >>> [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis], and; [RFC9325] apply here as well. >>> >>> Perhaps: >>> The security considerations of PCEP [RFC5440] [RFC8231] [RFC8253] >>> [RFC8281] [RFC8283], TLS 1.2 [RFC5246], TLS 1.3 [RFC9846], >>> and TLS/DTLS recommendations [RFC9325] apply here as well. >>> --> >> >> The proposed edit looks fine to me. >> >> >>> 3) <!-- [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. >>> --> >> >> I do not see any concerns. >> >> Russ >> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
