Hi, Francesca. We received a New Version notification for this document. This document is currently in the AUTH48 state.
Please review <https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-asdf-sdf-25> and Carsten's email below (which provides background), and let us know if you approve of these updates. Thank you! Lynne Bartholomew RFC Production Center > On Oct 13, 2025, at 2:00 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > > A new version (-25) has been submitted for draft-ietf-asdf-sdf: > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-asdf-sdf-25.txt > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-asdf-sdf-25.html > > > The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-asdf-sdf/ > > Diff from previous version: > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-asdf-sdf-25 > > IETF Secretariat. > > > From: Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9880 <draft-ietf-asdf-sdf-24> for > your review > Date: October 13, 2025 at 2:13:38 AM PDT > To: RFC Errata System <[email protected]> > Cc: Michael Koster <[email protected]>, Ari Keränen > <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], Michael > Richardson <[email protected]>, Francesca Palombini > <[email protected]>, [email protected] > > RFC-editor, > ART ADs, > > On 2025-10-10, at 22:02, Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Please note that we are also preparing a -25, with two typo/C&P fixes and >> one more technical omission fixed (PR #187 to #189 in >> https://github.com/ietf-wg-asdf/SDF/pulls). >> We previously prepared a -24 with PR #186 in it (technical omissions), which >> you already picked up. >> You probably need AD approval for all these. > > We now submitted the -25, which is actually now composed of the changes in PR > #187, #188, and #190 in https://github.com/ietf-wg-asdf/SDF/pulls?q=is%3Apr > (q.v.). > > Note that the CDDL change in PR#190 triggers regeneration of the JSO. > Since the last regeneration, an underlying library of the conversion tool has > made some JSON prettyprinting style adjustments. > These actually contain some improvements (wasting less space), so even though > there is no semantic change in the JSO, we would like to use the newly > regenerated version. > (We did test the regenerated JSO.) > > As a result of checking in the regenerated JSO with these stylistic > improvements, there is a large amount of change noise caused in the > sourcecode element in Appendix B. > This is best solved by doing a wholesale replacement of the generated > text for the sourcecode element in Appendix B. > > Apologies for causing that work. > > Grüße, Carsten > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
