Hi Authors and Mahesh (AD)*, *Mahesh - As the AD, please review and approve of the added 2119/8174 keyword in the sentence below (Section 1).
Original: NOTE: Implementations that support TLS 1.3 [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis] should refer to TLS 1.3 [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis] in Sections 4 and 5 of [RFC7589]. Current: NOTE: Implementations that support TLS 1.3 [RFC9846] SHOULD also follow Sections 4 and 5 of [RFC7589]. See this diff file: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9918-auth48diff.html Authors - Thank you for your reply. We have updated the document accordingly. The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9918.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9918.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9918.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9918.xml The relevant diff files are posted here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9918-diff.html (comprehensive diff) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9918-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9918-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 changes side by side) Please review the document carefully as documents do not change once published as RFCs. We will await any further changes you may have and approvals from each author and *Mahesh prior to moving forward in the publication process. Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9918 Thank you, Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On Jan 20, 2026, at 7:15 AM, Sean Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > > Alana, > > Hi! > > More below.. and my new ones follow: > > 1) Minor nit: > > OLD: > > data, which is also known as 0-RTT data. It also updates "netconf- > tls", the IANA-registered port number entry, to refer to this > > NEW: > > data, which is also known as 0-RTT data. It also updates > "netconf-tls", the IANA-registered port number entry, to refer to this > > 2) Tweak to make it match others: > > OLD: > > This document specifies that > NETCONF implementations that support TLS 1.3 MUST NOT use early data. > > NEW: > > This document specifies that > NETCONF implementations that support TLS 1.3 or later MUST NOT use early > data. > > spt > >> On Jan 16, 2026, at 15:34, Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Russ, >> >> Thank you for your reply. >> >> The files have been posted here (please refresh): >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9918.xml >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9918.txt >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9918.html >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9918.pdf >> >> The relevant diff files have been posted here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9918-diff.html (comprehensive diff) >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9918-rfcdiff.html (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/rfc9918 >> >> Thank you, >> Alanna Paloma >> RFC Production Center >> >>> On Jan 16, 2026, at 11:02 AM, Russ Housley <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Dear RFC Editor: >>> >>>> 1) <!--[rfced] As [RFC9846] was cited twice in this sentence, >>>> we have removed the second instance. Please review and let us know >>>> if you prefer otherwise. >>>> >>>> Original: >>>> | NOTE: Implementations that support TLS 1.3 >>>> | [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis] should refer to TLS 1.3 >>>> | [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis] in Sections 4 and 5 of [RFC7589]. >>>> >>>> Current: >>>> | NOTE: Implementations that support TLS 1.3 [RFC9846] >>>> | should refer to TLS 1.3 in Sections 4 and 5 of [RFC7589]. >>>> --> >>> >>> The proposed rewording looks fine to me. > > Can we tweak this note to be: > > NOTE: Implementations that support TLS 1.3 [RFC9846] > SHOULD also follow Sections 4 and 5 of [RFC7589]. > >>>> 2) <!--[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. >>>> >>>> Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) >>>> --> >>> >>> The looks fine to me. > > ditto > >>>> 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. > > ditto > >>> Russ >>> >> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
