Hi Russ, Thank you for the quick replies! Your approval has been noted on the AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9916
Best regards, Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On Jan 16, 2026, at 12:38 PM, Russ Housley <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]
