Hi Madison, all, I have a couple of comments on the requested changes—please see [ST] below.
On Fri Jan 16 18:48:23 2026, [email protected] wrote: > 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. [ST] These changes are complete. Just a heads-up that we apply a masking scheme across the website that converts “@” symbols in email addresses to ampersands. > 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. [ST] If we keep the links to the registries, we won’t be able to remove the brackets. As an alternative, we could remove the links and use quotation marks instead. Please let us know which you’d prefer. > 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. [ST] Thanks for catching this—I've added a footnote in the description field referencing note 1. Please let me know if any other changes are needed. Thank you, Sabrina > Thank you, > Madison Church > RFC Production Center > > > > On Jan 15, 2026, at 3:00 PM, Madison Church <[email protected] > > editor.org> 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] > >>> editor.org> 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]
