Hi Alanna, Please note my approval as part of AUTH48.
Thanks! Dhruv On Sat, Jan 17, 2026 at 2:16 AM Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Russ, > > Thank you for the quick replies! Your approval has been noted on the > AUTH48 status page: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9916 > > Best regards, > Alanna Paloma > RFC Production Center > > > On Jan 16, 2026, at 12:38 PM, Russ Housley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Looks good to me. > > > > Russ > > > >> On Jan 16, 2026, at 3:33 PM, Alanna Paloma < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Russ and Sean, > >> > >> Thank you for your replies. We’ve updated the document accordingly. > >> > >> The files have been posted here (please refresh): > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9916.xml > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9916.txt > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9916.html > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9916.pdf > >> > >> The relevant diff files have been posted here: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9916-diff.html (comprehensive > diff) > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9916-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 > changes) > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9916-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 > changes side by side) > >> > >> Please review the document carefully and contact us with any further > updates you may have. Note that we do not make changes once a document is > published as an RFC. > >> > >> We will await approvals from each party listed on the AUTH48 status > page below prior to moving this document forward in the publication process. > >> > >> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9916 > >> > >> Thank you, > >> Alanna Paloma > >> RFC Production Center > >> > >>> On Jan 16, 2026, at 12:01 PM, Sean Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Agreed to all 3. > >>> > >>> spt > >>> > >>>> On Jan 16, 2026, at 13:56, Russ Housley <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Dear RFC Editor: > >>>> > >>>>> 1) <!--[rfced] Regarding the title, even though "PCEPS" is explained > in the > >>>>> abstract, please consider updating the title so that at least "PCEP" > is > >>>>> expanded. > >>>>> > >>>>> Original: > >>>>> Updates for PCEPS: TLS Connection Establishment Restrictions > >>>>> > >>>>> Perhaps: > >>>>> Updates to the Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the > >>>>> Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) > >>>> > >>>> The proposed title looks fine to me. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> 2) <!--[rfced] May we clarify the citation to RFC 9325 by adding > "TLS/DTLS > >>>>> recommendations" to the sentence below? > >>>>> > >>>>> Original: > >>>>> The Security Considerations of PCEP [RFC5440], [RFC8231], [RFC8253], > >>>>> [RFC8281], and [RFC8283]; TLS 1.2 [RFC5246]; TLS 1.3 > >>>>> [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis], and; [RFC9325] apply here as well. > >>>>> > >>>>> Perhaps: > >>>>> The security considerations of PCEP [RFC5440] [RFC8231] [RFC8253] > >>>>> [RFC8281] [RFC8283], TLS 1.2 [RFC5246], TLS 1.3 [RFC9846], > >>>>> and TLS/DTLS recommendations [RFC9325] apply here as well. > >>>>> --> > >>>> > >>>> The proposed edit looks fine to me. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> 3) <!-- [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. > >>>>> --> > >>>> > >>>> I do not see any concerns. > >>>> > >>>> Russ > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
