IANA,

The initial IANA actions were made on version -14 of this document. The authors 
then submitted a new version -15 and added to the list of registries that have 
a “Comment” column (Section 14). 

Please add “Comment” columns to the “TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers", 
"TLS SignatureAlgorithm”, and "TLS HashAlgorithm” registries at 
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters/>.

See the diff between versions -14 and -15 here:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis-14&url2=draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis-15&difftype=--html
See the diff of the edited document here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-diff.html

Thank you,
Alanna Paloma
RFC Production Center

> On Oct 30, 2025, at 4:19 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> 
> Authors,
> 
> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) 
> the following questions, which are also in the source file.
> 
> 1) <!-- [rfced] Note that we have updated the short title, which appears in 
> the
> running header in the PDF output, as follows. Please let us know any 
> objections.
> 
> Original:
> (D)TLS IANA Registry Updates
> 
> Current:
> TLS and DTLS IANA Registry Updates
> -->
> 
> 
> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the 
> title)
> for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
> 
> 
> 3) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We will do the following when we convert the file to 
> RFCXML:
> 
> - Update relevant URLs to be clickable in the HTML and PDF outputs
> -->
> 
> 
> 4) <!-- [rfced] Because this document updates RFC 8447, please
> review the errata reported for RFC 8447 
> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc8447)
> and let us know if you confirm our opinion that none of them
> are relevant to the content of this document.
> -->
> 
> 
> 5) <!-- [rfced] In the sentence below, is the intention to have consensus
> to leave one item or multiple items marked?
> 
> Original: 
>   The IETF might have consensus to leave an items marked as "N" on the
>   basis of its having limited applicability or usage constraints.
> 
> Perhaps (Singular): 
>   The IETF might have consensus to leave an item marked as "N" on the
>   basis of the item having limited applicability or usage constraints.
> 
> Or (Plural): 
>   The IETF might have consensus to leave items marked as "N" on the
>   basis of the items having limited applicability or usage constraints.
> -->
> 
> 
> 6) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have reordered the values in Table 1 to reflect
> how they are listed in the "TLS ExtensionType Values" registry.
> -->
> 
> 
> 7) <!--[rfced] May we remove this sentence from the end of Section 14?
> This action is already listed in Section 7.
> 
> Original:
>   IANA is requested to rename the "Note" column to "Comment" column in
>   TLS Exporter Labels registry.
> -->   
> 
> 
> 8) <!--[rfced] IANA provided the following note when they notified us that 
> their
> actions were complete:
> 
> NOTE: Some text at the end of the IANA Considerations section concerning 
> request
> submission needs to be removed or replaced. Details at the end of the list of
> actions.
> 
> Per this note and to reflect what appears in the TLS-related IANA registries,
> we have updated the text as shown below. Please let us know if any changes are
> needed.
> 
> Original:
>   Requests for assignments from the registry's Specification Required
>   range should be sent to the mailing list described in [This RFC,
>   Section 16].  If approved, designated experts should notify IANA
>   within three weeks.  For assistance, please contact [email protected].
> 
> Current:
>   |  Note: Requests for registration in the "Specification Required"
>   |  [RFC8126] range should be sent to [email protected] or submitted via
>   |  IANA's application form, per [RFC 9847].  IANA will forward the
>   |  request to the expert mailing list described in [RFC8447],
>   |  Section 17 and track its progress.  See the registration procedure
>   |  table below for more information.
> -->
> 
> 
> 9) <!-- [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.
> 
> International Data Encryption Algorithm (IDEA)
> -->
> 
> 
> 10) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have updated the following terms to the form on the
> right to match other documents in Cluster 430. Please let us know any 
> objections.
> 
> ciphersuite(s) > cipher suite(s)
> code points > codepoints
> -->
> 
> 
> 11) <!-- [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.
> -->
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> Madison Church and Alanna Paloma
> RFC Production Center
> 
> 
> On Oct 30, 2025, at 4:18 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> 
> *****IMPORTANT*****
> 
> Updated 2025/10/30
> 
> RFC Author(s):
> 
> Your document has now entered AUTH48. 
> 
> The document was edited in kramdown-rfc as part of the RPC pilot test (see 
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc). 
> 
> Please review the procedures for AUTH48 using kramdown-rfc:
> 
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_instructions_completing_auth48_using_kramdown
> 
> Once your document has completed AUTH48, it will be published as 
> an RFC.  
> 
> 
> Files 
> -----
> 
> The files are available here:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.md
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.pdf
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.txt
> 
> Diff file of the text:
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-diff.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
> 
> Diff of the kramdown: 
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-md-diff.html
>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-md-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
> 
> 
> Tracking progress
> -----------------
> 
> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9847
> 
> 
> Please let us know if you have any questions.  
> 
> Thank you for your cooperation,
> 
> RFC Editor 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC9847 (draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis-15)
> 
> Title            : IANA Registry Updates for TLS and DTLS
> Author(s)        : J. Salowey, S. Turner
> WG Chair(s)      : Joseph A. Salowey, Sean Turner, Deirdre Connolly
> 
> Area Director(s) : Deb Cooley, Paul Wouters
> 
> 

-- 
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to