Hi Russ, Thank you for your reply. Your approval has been noted: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9918
Best regards, Alanna Paloma RFC Production Center > On Jan 21, 2026, at 7:57 AM, Russ Housley <[email protected]> wrote: > > I approve. > > Russ > >> On Jan 21, 2026, at 10:47 AM, Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Sean, >> >> Thank you for your approval. It has been noted on the AUTH48 status page: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9918 >> >> Once we receive approvals from Mahesh (AD) and Russ, we will move this >> document forward in the publication process. >> >> Best regards, >> Alanna Paloma >> RFC Production Center >> >>> On Jan 21, 2026, at 5:43 AM, Sean Turner <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Based on these diffs I approve. >>> >>> spt >>> >>>> On Jan 20, 2026, at 14:55, Alanna Paloma <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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]
