Madison, Hi! Question about formatting:
I see that the asides were converted to quotes: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.html#name-recommended-note and https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.html#name-tls-exporter-labels-registr In other RFCs they stayed as asides: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9881.html#name-ml-dsa-public-keys-in-pkix Why are they different? One other formatting thing: In s7: s/{{RFC8447, Section 17}}/{{Section 17 of RFC8447}} spt > On Nov 25, 2025, at 11:06, Madison Church <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Authors, > > This is a friendly reminder that we have yet to hear back from you regarding > this document’s readiness for publication. > > Note that we have made additional updates to the IANA Considerations section > based on a note that we received from IANA. Please review: >> The actions have all been completed, but the last three paragraphs of >> Section 18 (the IANA Considerations section) need to be removed. The authors >> decided to stop sending requesters to the mailing list they’re referring to >> in that section and instead send them directly to IANA. (In fact, Rich is >> talking about shutting that [email protected] list down entirely, >> which is what drew my attention to this.) The note that’s been pasted into >> that section is actually an old note that we removed from the registry as we >> were performing the actions.Our understanding is that the section should >> just read, “This document is entirely about changes to TLS-related IANA >> registries.” > > 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, see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9847. > > 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. > > Thank you! > > Madison Church > RFC Production Center > >> On Nov 17, 2025, at 2:39 PM, Madison Church <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> 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]
