Alan, Thanks for your reply. We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9765). We now have all approvals and will move forward with the publication process at this time.
Thank you, RFC Editor > On Apr 17, 2025, at 9:58 AM, Alan DeKok <al...@freeradius.org> wrote: > > On Apr 16, 2025, at 6:10 PM, Kaelin Foody <kfo...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: >> - Section 1 (updated text in paragraph 3 per the reply to #4), >> - Section 3.3.2 (added text per the reply to #10), and >> - Section 5.2 (added text per the reply to #13). >> >> Alan, thanks for your suggestion. Please see the updated files below and let >> us know if all of these changes are approved. Additionally, please note that >> we await your response to question #3:\ > > Approved. > > keywords suggestions are: > > RADIUS > ALPN > MD5 > FIPS 140 > TLS > > > >>> 3) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in >>> the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> >> >> The revised files are here (please refresh): >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9765.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9765.txt >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9765.pdf >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9765.xml >> >> This diff file shows all changes from the approved I-D: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9765-diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9765-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> >> This diff file shows the changes made during AUTH48 thus far: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9765-auth48diff.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9765-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) >> >> Thank you. >> RFC Editor/kf >> >>> On Apr 9, 2025, at 3:28 PM, Alan DeKok >>> <aland=40freeradius....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Apr 4, 2025, at 6:02 PM, Alice Russo <aru...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: >>>> Alan, thank you for your reply. Please see the follow-up below. The >>>> revised files are here (please refresh): >>> >>> Those look fine, thanks. >>> >>>> Re: #13, re: >>>>> Perhaps also add a note: >>>>> Further issues related to Message-Authenticator are discussed in >>>>> [draft-ietf-radext-deprecating-radius]. >>>> >>>> Is it correct that we should add this sentence to the end of Section 5.2 >>>> as its own paragraph, and add draft-ietf-radext-deprecating-radius as an >>>> informative reference, with anchor "DEPRECATE-RADIUS"? >>> >>> Yes. >>> >>> Alan DeKok. >>> >> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
