I'm in the process of document review. Questions answered below. Thanks,
Joe On Thu, 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 > --> > > [Joe] This looks good to me > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in > the title) > for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. --> > > [Joe]I don't think there are additional keywords > > 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 > --> > > [Joe] OK > > 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. > --> > > [Joe] The offending sentence no longer appears in the document since the IANA action has already been completed. The registry has be updated with the correct name since TLS 1.3. > > 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. > --> > > [Joe] I don't think it changes the intent of the section. I have a slight preference for the Singular, but either will do. > > 6) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have reordered the values in Table 1 to reflect > how they are listed in the "TLS ExtensionType Values" registry. > --> > > [Joe] Thank you > > 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. > --> > > [Joe] Yes > > 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. > --> > > [Joe] This looks good to me > > 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) > --> > > [Joe] I believe this is correct. > > 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 > --> > > [Joe] This looks good, Thank you > > 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. > --> > > [Joe] OK will review. > > 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]
