Hi Russ, Thank you for your reply.
The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9918.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9918.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9918.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9918.pdf The relevant diff files have been posted here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9918-diff.html (comprehensive diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9918-rfcdiff.html (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/rfc9918 Thank you, Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On Jan 16, 2026, at 11:02 AM, Russ Housley <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear RFC Editor: > >> 1) <!--[rfced] As [RFC9846] was cited twice in this sentence, >> we have removed the second instance. Please review and let us know >> if you prefer otherwise. >> >> Original: >> | NOTE: Implementations that support TLS 1.3 >> | [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis] should refer to TLS 1.3 >> | [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis] in Sections 4 and 5 of [RFC7589]. >> >> Current: >> | NOTE: Implementations that support TLS 1.3 [RFC9846] >> | should refer to TLS 1.3 in Sections 4 and 5 of [RFC7589]. >> --> > > The proposed rewording looks fine to me. > > >> 2) <!--[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. >> >> Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) >> --> > > The 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]
