Hi Jon, Just a friendly reminder that we await your reply to Chris' questions.
Thank you, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Dec 1, 2025, at 2:50 PM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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]
