All, Sean’s approval has been noted on the AUTH48 status page. We have now received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9916
As this document is part of Cluster C496, you may track the progress of all documents in this cluster through AUTH48 at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C496 Note: This document normatively references RFC-to-be 9846, so it will be published at the same time as or after that document. Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you, Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On Jan 20, 2026, at 1:48 PM, Sean Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]
