Hi Sean and Joe, Since we now have all necessary approvals, we will move this document forward in the publication process.
Thank you for your participation in the first Markdown AUTH48 experiment! Best, Madison Church RFC Production Center > On Dec 19, 2025, at 1:38 PM, Madison Church <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Amanda, > > The changes look good. Thank you! > > Madison Church > RFC Production Center > >> On Dec 19, 2025, at 1:36 PM, Amanda Baber via RT <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> These changes are complete: >> >> https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters >> https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-extensiontype-values >> >> thanks, >> Amanda >> >> On Wed Dec 17 19:25:24 2025, [email protected] wrote: >>> IANA, >>> >>> Please update the note on the "Recommended" column as follows for the >>> registries below: >>> TLS ExtensionType Values >>> TLS Cipher Suites >>> TLS Supported Groups >>> TLS Exporter Labels >>> TLS Certificate Types >>> TLS HashAlgorithm >>> TLS SignatureAlgorithm >>> TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers >>> TLS PskKeyExchangeMode >>> TLS SignatureScheme >>> >>> Current: >>> If "Recommended" column is set to "N", it does not necessarily >>> mean that it is flawed; rather, it indicates that the item either >>> has not been through the IETF consensus process, has limited >>> applicability, or is intended only for specific use cases. If the >>> "Recommended" column is set to "D," the item is discouraged and >>> SHOULD NOT or MUST NOT be used, depending upon the situation; >>> consult the item's references for clarity. >>> >>> Updated (add "the" before "Recommended"): >>> If the "Recommended" column is set to "N", it does not necessarily >>> mean that it is flawed; rather, it indicates that the item either >>> has not been through the IETF consensus process, has limited >>> applicability, or is intended only for specific use cases. If the >>> "Recommended" column is set to "D," the item is discouraged and >>> SHOULD NOT or MUST NOT be used, depending upon the situation; >>> consult the item's references for clarity. >>> >>> Thank you! >>> >>> Madison Church >>> RFC Production Center >>> >>>> On Dec 17, 2025, at 6:36 AM, Sean Turner <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> spt >>>> >>>>> On Dec 16, 2025, at 16:20, Madison Church <[email protected] >>>>> editor.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Sean and Joe, >>>>> >>>>> Thank you both for your replies (and apologies for the delayed reply >>>>> on my end)! We have noted both of your approvals here: >>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9847. >>>>> >>>>> We will now send our updates along to IANA. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you! >>>>> >>>>> Madison Church >>>>> RFC Production Center >>>>> >>>>>> On Dec 16, 2025, at 3:02 PM, Sean Turner <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> And these last changes look good to me too! >>>>>> >>>>>> spt >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Dec 11, 2025, at 11:13, Madison Church <[email protected] >>>>>>> editor.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Sean and Joe, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is a friendly reminder that we await your approvals for the >>>>>>> formatting of this document. For formatting changes, we have >>>>>>> updated relevant URLs to be clickable in the HTML and PDF outputs. >>>>>>> In addition to formatting, we have updated the date and added a >>>>>>> couple of missing periods in a few unordered lists throughout the >>>>>>> document (see Sections 4 and 6: https://www.rfc- >>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9847-lastdiff.html). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please review the XML file and its TXT, HTML, and PDF outputs, and >>>>>>> let us know if any changes are required or if you approve the RFC >>>>>>> for publication. While this is your approval of the XML and its >>>>>>> outputs, we consider this your final assent that the document is >>>>>>> ready for publication. To request changes or approve your RFC for >>>>>>> publication, please reply to this email. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, >>>>>>> as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Note that we will only make changes in the XML file from this >>>>>>> point on. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> XML file: >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.xml >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Output files: >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.txt >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.pdf >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lastdiff of the text (shows latest changes): >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-lastdiff.html >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-lastrfcdiff.html (side >>>>>>> by side) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Comprehensive 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) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9847 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you! >>>>>>> Madison Church >>>>>>> RFC Production Center >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Dec 4, 2025, at 4:15 PM, Sean Turner <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I pulled the md file so I can more easily make the repo match >>>>>>>> final product. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> spt >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Dec 4, 2025, at 15:05, Madison Church <[email protected] >>>>>>>>> editor.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Joe and Sean, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We have converted the kramdown-rfc file to RFCXML. For >>>>>>>>> formatting changes, we have updated relevant URLs to be >>>>>>>>> clickable in the HTML and PDF outputs. In addition to >>>>>>>>> formatting, we have updated the date and added a couple of >>>>>>>>> missing periods in a few unordered lists throughout the document >>>>>>>>> (see Sections 4 and 6: https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>> editor.org/authors/rfc9847-lastdiff.html). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please review the XML file and its TXT, HTML, and PDF outputs, >>>>>>>>> and let us know if any changes are required or if you approve >>>>>>>>> the RFC for publication. While this is your approval of the XML >>>>>>>>> and its outputs, we consider this your final assent that the >>>>>>>>> document is ready for publication. To request changes or approve >>>>>>>>> your RFC for publication, please reply to this email. Please use >>>>>>>>> ‘REPLY ALL’, as all the parties CCed on this message need to see >>>>>>>>> your approval. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Note that we will only make changes in the XML file from this >>>>>>>>> point on. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> XML file: >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.xml >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Output files: >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.txt >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.pdf >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847.html >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Lastdiff of the text (shows latest changes): >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-lastdiff.html >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9847-lastrfcdiff.html >>>>>>>>> (side by side) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Comprehensive 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) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >>>>>>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9847 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thank you! >>>>>>>>> Madison Church >>>>>>>>> RFC Production Center >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Dec 4, 2025, at 1:56 PM, Madison Church <[email protected] >>>>>>>>>> editor.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Joe, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your reply! We have marked your approval for the >>>>>>>>>> contents of this document (see: https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>>> editor.org/auth48/rfc9847). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We will now move on to the second part of the kramdown-rfc >>>>>>>>>> AUTH48 process, which will be sent in a separate email shortly. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thank you! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Madison Church >>>>>>>>>> RFC Production Center >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 3, 2025, at 4:17 PM, Joseph Salowey <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you Madison. I approve of the document's content. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Joe >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 6:54 AM Madison Church >>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Sean, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your reply! We have marked your approval for the >>>>>>>>>>> document’s content (see https://www.rfc- >>>>>>>>>>> editor.org/auth48/rfc9847). Once we receive Joe’s approval for >>>>>>>>>>> the content of the document, we will convert the document to >>>>>>>>>>> XML to make any remaining formatting updates and ask for >>>>>>>>>>> formatting approvals at that time. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Madison Church >>>>>>>>>>> RFC Production Center >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 1, 2025, at 8:28 AM, Sean Turner <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 26, 2025, at 14:32, Madison Church >>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Sean, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your reply! Please see inline. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 26, 2025, at 10:55 AM, Sean Turner <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for asking. We use {:quote} instead of {:aside} >>>>>>>>>>>>> for notes that appear in an IANA registry because the >>>>>>>>>>>>> document is quoting the IANA registry. We do not believe >>>>>>>>>>>>> these fit the description of {:aside} (<aside> in XML), >>>>>>>>>>>>> which is defined as “a container for content that is >>>>>>>>>>>>> semantically less important or tangential to the content >>>>>>>>>>>>> that surrounds it". >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Okay well that makes total sense ;) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> One other formatting thing: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In s7: s/{{RFC8447, Section 17}}/{{Section 17 of RFC8447}} >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We have updated as requested! See updated files below. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We will await content 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. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I approve the formatting for this I-D. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I also approve the contents for this I-D. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> spt >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you! >>>>>>>>>>>>> Madison Church >>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC Production Center >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 tls- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [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 <rfc-editor@rfc- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> editor.org> 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]
