Hi Jon, Just a friendly reminder that we await your reply to Chris' questions.
Thank you, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Dec 23, 2025, at 8:32 AM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Chris, > > Could you ping Jon again about responding to your questions? Perhaps there is > another email for him we should use? > > Thank you, > Sarah Tarrant > RFC Production Center > >> On Dec 18, 2025, at 4:05 PM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> 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]
