Hi Chris and Jon, Chris - Thank you for your reply!
Jon - Could you address Chris' questions below? Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Nov 23, 2025, at 7:38 AM, Chris Wendt <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > My answers are inline below, would like Jon to confirm he agrees, especially > the corrections in the text in question 2 and 6. > > @Jon please take a look. > > -Chris > >> On Nov 3, 2025, at 1:04 PM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Author(s), >> >> Congratulations, your document has been successfully added to the RFC Editor >> queue! >> The team at the RFC Production Center (RPC) is looking forward to working >> with you >> as your document moves forward toward publication. To help reduce processing >> time >> and improve editing accuracy, please respond to the questions below. Please >> confer >> with your coauthors (or authors of other documents if your document is in a >> cluster) as necessary prior to taking action in order to streamline >> communication. >> If your document has multiple authors, only one author needs to reply to >> this >> message. >> >> As you read through the rest of this email: >> >> * If you need/want to make updates to your document, we encourage you to >> make those >> changes and resubmit to the Datatracker. This allows for the easy creation >> of diffs, >> which facilitates review by interested parties (e.g., authors, ADs, doc >> shepherds). >> * If you feel no updates to the document are necessary, please reply with >> any >> applicable rationale/comments. >> >> >> Please note that the RPC team will not work on your document until we hear >> from you >> (that is, your document will remain in AUTH state until we receive a reply). >> Even >> if you don't have guidance or don't feel that you need to make any updates >> to the >> document, you need to let us know. After we hear from you, your document >> will start >> moving through the queue. You will be able to review and approve our updates >> during AUTH48. >> >> Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have at >> [email protected]. >> >> Thank you! >> The RPC Team >> >> -- >> >> 1) As there may have been multiple updates made to the document during Last >> Call, >> please review the current version of the document: >> >> * Is the text in the Abstract still accurate? > > Yes it is still accurate. > >> * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments >> sections current? > > Could you update my email to [email protected]? Otherwise correct. > >> >> >> 2) Please share any style information that could help us with editing your >> document. For example: >> >> * Is your document's format or its terminology based on another document? >> If so, please provide a pointer to that document (e.g., this document's >> terminology should match DNS terminology in RFC 9499). > > I think all of the references are accurate, other than being a bis document > to update rfc4916 which is clearly described, I think it is good. > >> * Is there a pattern of capitalization or formatting of terms? (e.g., field >> names >> should have initial capitalization; parameter names should be in double >> quotes; >> <tt/> should be used for token names; etc.) > > I did a search and capitalization does look correct. > > I did find the following clarification that should be corrected: > > "the only difference is in semantics, as the certificate signs for the "dest" > header field rather than the “orig” " > Should be: > "the only difference is in semantics, as the PASSporT is signed to > authenticate the "dest” claim value rather than the “orig” “ > > This change doesn’t change the intended/implied meaning, just more accurately > refers to “dest” as a PASSporT claim vs “header field” > > There is a second minor instance of this: > > "certificate in question is eligible to sign responses/requests for the > number in the "dest" field of the "rsp" PASSporT.” > Should be: > "certificate in question is eligible to sign responses/requests for the > number in the "dest" claim of the "rsp" PASSporT.” > > >> >> >> 3) Please review the entries in the References section carefully with >> the following in mind. Note that we will update as follows unless we >> hear otherwise at this time: >> >> * References to obsoleted RFCs will be updated to point to the current >> RFC on the topic in accordance with Section 4.8.6 of RFC 7322 >> (RFC Style Guide). >> >> * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be >> updated to point to the replacement I-D. >> >> * References to documents from other organizations that have been >> superseded will be updated to their superseding version. >> >> Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use >> idnits <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits>. You can also help the >> IETF Tools Team by testing idnits3 <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits3/> >> with your document and reporting any issues to them. > > Looks good. > >> >> >> 4) Is there any text that should be handled extra cautiously? For example, >> are >> there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? > > No > >> >> >> 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this >> document? > > No, this is pretty straight forward bis update. > >> >> >> 6) This document contains sourcecode: >> >> * Does the sourcecode validate? >> * Some sourcecode types (e.g., YANG) require certain references and/or text >> in the Security Considerations section. Is this information correct? >> * Is the sourcecode type indicated in the XML? (See information about >> sourcecode types.) > > There is only JSON objects in the document, I double checked the format and > looks accurate. > > I’m noticing one unrelated update: > > "https://www.example.com/cert.cer” > Should be, based on newer guidance the industry is using, this is a very > minor point: > "https://www.example.com/cert.pem” > > >> >> >> 7) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for editing in >> kramdown-rfc? >> If so, please let us know and provide a self-contained kramdown-rfc file. >> For more >> information about this experiment, see: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc. > > Not for this one. > >> >>> On Nov 3, 2025, at 12:53 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> The document draft-ietf-stir-rfc4916-update-07 has >>> changed from EDIT state to EDIT*A state. We thought you'd like to know. >>> You can also follow your document's state at >>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php>. >>> For definitions of state names, please see >>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/queue/#state_def>. >>> >>> If you have questions, please send mail to [email protected]. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> The RFC Editor Team -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
