IANA, Please make the following updates to match RFC-to-be 9880.
1) For the sdf+json media type (https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/sdf+json), please make the updates as shown in this diff file: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9880iana-ic7.1diff.html. 2) For the IETF URN Sub-namespace for Registered Protocol Parameter Identifiers registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/params/params.xhtml#params-1), please update the IANA Registry Reference for “unit” as shown in this diff file: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9880iana-ic7.3diff.html. 3) For the sdfType Values registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/sdf/sdf.xhtml#sdftype-values), "(note 1)" appears in the description for "unix-time", but no note appears in the registry. Please add the following note to the registry: (1) Note that the definition of unix-time does not imply the capability to represent points in time that fall on leap seconds. More date/time-related sdfTypes are likely to be added in the sdfType value registry. Thank you, Madison Church RFC Production Center > On Jan 15, 2026, at 3:00 PM, Madison Church <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Authors, Orie, > > Thank you all for your prompt replies and approvals! We have marked them on > the AUTH48 status page (see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9880). > > We will now send updates along to IANA. > > Thank you! > Madison Church > RFC Production Center > >> On Jan 14, 2026, at 10:58 PM, Michael Koster <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> I approve the document in its current form. >> >> Michael Koster >> >>> On Jan 14, 2026, at 9:04 AM, Madison Church <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Authors, *Orie, >>> >>> *Orie - Please review the updates in Sections 4.7, 5.3, 5.4, and 6.3 and >>> let us know if you approve. The changes can be viewed in this diff file: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9880-lastdiff.html. >>> >>> Carsten - Thank you for your reply! We have made your requested updates and >>> believe there are no remaining questions that are outstanding. >>> >>> Authors - Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we >>> do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with >>> any further updates or with your approval of the document in its current >>> form. We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in >>> the publication process. >>> >>> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9880.txt >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9880.pdf >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9880.html >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9880.xml >>> >>> The relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9880-diff.html (comprehensive changes) >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9880-rfcdiff.html (side by side) >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9880-auth48diff.html (all AUTH48 >>> changes) >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9880-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9880-lastdiff.html (most recent >>> AUTH48 changes) >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9880-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) >>> >>> >>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9880. >>> >>> Thank you! >>> Madison Church >>> RFC Production Center >>> >>> >>>> On Jan 9, 2026, at 11:22 AM, Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Jan 6, 2026, at 22:05, Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Below are the remaining nits I found. >>>> >>>> There is one more: >>>> >>>> We do use the term SDF specification, and it may not be clear how that >>>> relates to the terms SDF Model and SDF Document. >>>> We could clarify this in the definition of SDF Model: >>>> >>>> OLD: >>>> >>>> SDF Model: Definitions and declarations that model the digital >>>> interaction opportunities offered by one or more kinds of Things, >>>> represented by Groupings (sdfObjects and sdfThings). An SDF Model >>>> can be fully contained in a single SDF Document, or it can be >>>> built from an SDF Document that references definitions and >>>> declarations from additional SDF documents. >>>> >>>> NEW: >>>> (Existing text, plus:). >>>> The term SDF Specification can be used when the distinction between >>>> the distribution into individual SDF Documents and >>>> the abstract nature of the SDF Model is not of interest. >>>> >>>> Grüße, Carsten >> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
