Hi Jon and Chris, At this time, we'll be moving this document from AUTH to EDIT.
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Jan 12, 2026, at 3:54 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 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]
