Based on these diffs I approve. spt
> On Jan 20, 2026, at 14:55, Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Authors and Mahesh (AD)*, > > *Mahesh - As the AD, please review and approve of the added 2119/8174 keyword > in the sentence below (Section 1). > > 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 also follow Sections 4 and 5 of [RFC7589]. > > See this diff file: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9918-auth48diff.html > > > Authors - Thank you for your reply. We have updated the document accordingly. > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9918.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9918.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9918.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9918.xml > > The relevant diff files are posted here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9918-diff.html (comprehensive diff) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9918-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9918-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 > changes side by side) > > Please review the document carefully as documents do not change once > published as RFCs. > > We will await any further changes you may have and approvals from each author > and *Mahesh prior to moving forward in the publication process. > > Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9918 > > Thank you, > Alanna Paloma > RFC Production Center > >> On Jan 20, 2026, at 7:15 AM, Sean Turner <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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]
