Hi David, The changes look good.
Thank you! Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On Aug 18, 2025, at 3:21 PM, David Dong via RT <iana-mat...@iana.org> wrote: > > Hi Alanna, > > These changes have been completed: > > Note > Adding an entry to this registry with an N in the "Recommended" > column follows the registration policy of Specification Required. > Adding an entry to this registry with a Y in the "Recommended" > column or changing the "Recommended" column in an existing entry > (from N to Y or vice versa) requires IETF Review. > > ... > > hcp_shy Obscure Subject, remove Keywords and Comments, remove the time zone > from Date, and remove display-names from From, To, and Cc N > [RFC-ietf-lamps-header-protection-25, Section 3.2.2] > > Registry: > https://www.iana.org/assignments/mail-parameters/ > > Best regards, > > David Dong > IANA Services Sr. Specialist > > On Mon Aug 18 16:11:07 2025, apal...@staff.rfc-editor.org wrote: >> IANA, >> >> Please update your registries as follows to match the edited document >> at https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9788-diff.html. >> >> In the “Mail Header Confidentiality Policies” registry >> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/mail-parameters/mail- >> parameters.xhtml#mail-header-confidentiality-policies>: >> >> 1) In the first Note, please update the capitalization of >> "SPECIFICATION REQUIRED” to "Specification Required” and "IETF REVIEW” >> to "IETF Review”. >> >> Old: >> Adding an entry to this registry with an N in the "Recommended" >> column follows the registration policy of SPECIFICATION REQUIRED. >> Adding an entry to this registry with a Y in the "Recommended" >> column or changing the "Recommended" column in an existing entry >> (from N to Y or vice versa) requires IETF REVIEW >> >> New: >> Adding an entry to this registry with an N in the "Recommended” column >> follows the registration policy of Specification Required. Adding an >> entry >> to this registry with a Y in the "Recommended" column or changing the >> "Recommended" column in an existing entry (from N to Y or vice versa) >> requires IETF Review. >> >> >> 2) Please update the Description of “hcp_shy” as follows. >> >> Old: >> Header Confidentiality Policy Name: hcp_shy >> Description: Obscure Subject, remove Keywords and Comments, remove the >> time zone from Date, and obscure display-names >> >> New: >> Header Confidentiality Policy Name: hcp_shy >> Description: Obscure Subject, remove Keywords and Comments, remove the >> time zone from Date, and remove display-names from From, To, and Cc >> >> >> Best regards, >> Alanna Paloma >> RFC Production Center >> >>> On Aug 18, 2025, at 9:05 AM, Alanna Paloma <apal...@staff.rfc- >>> editor.org> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Authors, >>> >>> All author approvals have been received: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9788 >>> >>> We will now ask IANA to update their registry accordingly to match >>> this document. After the IANA updates are complete, we will move >>> forward with the publication process. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Alanna Paloma >>> RFC Production Center >>> >>> >>>> On Aug 16, 2025, at 3:50 AM, Bernie Hoeneisen >>>> <ber...@ietf.hoeneisen.ch> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Alanna >>>> >>>> I herewith sign out of RFC-to-be 9788. >>>> >>>> cheers >>>> Bernie >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> http://ucom.ch/ >>>> Modern Telephony Solutions and Tech Consulting for Internet >>>> Technology >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, 15 Aug 2025, Alanna Paloma wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Authors, >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for the updated XML file. We have updated the other >>>>> document files accordingly; see below. >>>>> >>>>> Once we have received Bernie's approval, we will ask IANA to update >>>>> their registry accordingly. After the IANA updates are complete, we >>>>> will move this document forward in the publication process. >>>>> >>>>> Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here: >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9788 >>>>> >>>>> — FILES (please refresh) — >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9788.xml >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9788.txt >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9788.html >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9788.pdf >>>>> >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9788-diff.html (comprehensive >>>>> diff) >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9788-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 >>>>> changes) >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9788-auth48rfcdiff.html >>>>> (AUTH48 changes side by side) >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9788-lastdiff.html (last >>>>> version to this one) >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9788-lastrfcdiff.html >>>>> (rfcdiff between last version and this) >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Alanna Paloma >>>>> RFC Production Center >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 14, 2025, at 8:44 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor >>>>>> <d...@fifthhorseman.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi RFC Editor, all-- >>>>>> >>>>>> As Bernie noted, the authors have agreed on some additional >>>>>> terminology >>>>>> cleanup for draft-ietf-lamps-header-protection, aka RFC-to-be- >>>>>> 9788. >>>>>> >>>>>> We're trying to be clearer about message "composition" and >>>>>> "rendering", >>>>>> as opposed to "sending" and "receiving", since the work takes >>>>>> place in >>>>>> the end user's MUA regardless of the moment of submission to or >>>>>> retrieval from the SMTP ecosystem. >>>>>> >>>>>> The authors have agreed that on this as an editorial improvement >>>>>> for >>>>>> terminology in the draft, but it offers no substantive or >>>>>> functional >>>>>> changes to the guidance. >>>>>> >>>>>> Note that we've also incorporated a trivial editorial cleanup >>>>>> offered by >>>>>> Rob Sayre in this revision. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please see the attached updated XML. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> --dkg >>>>>> >>>>>> <rfc9788.xml> >>>>> >>> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
