Hi Joe, Thank you for your reply! We have updated the document accordingly and have no further questions related to content at this time.
Please review the contents of the document carefully. Contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the document’s contents in its current form. We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward with formatting updates. For details of the AUTH48 process in kramdown-rfc (including the two-part approval process), see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc. The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.md The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) Markdown diffs: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-md-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-md-rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-md-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-md-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9847 Thank you! Madison Church RFC Production Center > On Nov 15, 2025, at 8:20 PM, Joseph Salowey <[email protected]> wrote: > > Attached is an updated markdown file, did we have this in a github repo as > well? Might be easier to make comments and suggest changes through PRs. > > I only made one substantive change to update my Organization from Venafi to > CyberArk. > > I also ran fix-lint to remove some of the trailing whitespace so I can build > it. > > I also modified the text in comment 5 to apply the "Singular" option which is > what I think is the best. > > I didn't find any issues with inclusive language. > > Cheers, > > Joe > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2025 at 4:53 PM Joseph Salowey <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > <rfc9847.md> -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
