I reloaded and whammy it’s there! I approve! spt
> On Jan 20, 2026, at 14:53, Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]
