Looks good to me.

Russ

> On Jan 16, 2026, at 3:33 PM, Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> 
> 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]

Reply via email to