Hi Dhruv and Sean, Dhruv’s approval has been noted the AUTH48 status page: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9916
And we have update the line break per Sean’s suggestion. See the files below (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 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) Once we have received Sean's approval, we will move this document forward in the publication process. Thank you, Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On Jan 20, 2026, at 6:25 AM, Sean Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > > I have a very minor nit and then I approve as well. In s4, can we move the > “TLS/" down to the next line so there’s no break between the “TLS/" and > “DTLS", i.e., > > OLD > > 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. > > NEW: > > 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. > >> On Jan 17, 2026, at 00:23, Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Alanna, >> >> Please note my approval as part of AUTH48. >> >> Thanks! >> Dhruv >> >> On Sat, Jan 17, 2026 at 2:16 AM Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> 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]
