Alana, Hi!
More below.. and my new ones follow: 1) Minor nit: OLD: data, which is also known as 0-RTT data. It also updates "netconf- tls", the IANA-registered port number entry, to refer to this NEW: data, which is also known as 0-RTT data. It also updates "netconf-tls", the IANA-registered port number entry, to refer to this 2) Tweak to make it match others: OLD: This document specifies that NETCONF implementations that support TLS 1.3 MUST NOT use early data. NEW: This document specifies that NETCONF implementations that support TLS 1.3 or later MUST NOT use early data. spt > On Jan 16, 2026, at 15:34, Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. Can we tweak this note to be: NOTE: Implementations that support TLS 1.3 [RFC9846] SHOULD also follow Sections 4 and 5 of [RFC7589]. >>> 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. ditto >>> 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. ditto >> Russ >> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
