> On Mar 16, 2026, at 4:54 PM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Russ, > > Thank you for your reply. We have three remaining questions: > > 1) Regarding text styling, we did find <tt>1.3.6.1.5.5.7.8.12</tt> in Section > 3: > > In this document "otherName", "OtherName" and "GeneralName.otherName" > all refer to a GeneralName.otherName field included in a SAN or IAN. > The new name form is identified by the OBJECT IDENTIFIER (OID) > id-on-MACAddress (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.8.12) and declared below using the > OTHER-NAME class declaration syntax. > > This is the only instance. Are these tags correct?
I am fine with whatever styling you suggest. > 2) Regarding the markdown experiment, is the following markdown code up to > date? If not, please attach the self-contained kramdown-rfc file in your > response. > > > https://github.com/CBonnell/draft-housley-lamps-macaddress-on/blob/main/draft-ietf-lamps-macaddress-on.md?plain=1 I believe so. Since the Internet-Draft repository was closed for IETF 125 when -07 was posted, the "-latest" was changed to "-07" by hand so that the Secretariat could post the draft with AD approval. > 3) Regarding the GitHub experiment, please provide all author, AD, and/or > document shepherd GitHub usernames. Russ Housley = russhousley Corey Bonnell = CBonnell Joe Mandel = mandelj7 Tomofumi Okubo = tomofumiokubo Michael StJohns = mstjohns Tim Hollebeek = timfromdigicert Deb Cooley = debcooley > > Sincerely, > Sarah Tarrant > RFC Production Center > >> On Mar 16, 2026, at 3:38 PM, Russ Housley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Sarah. >> >>> 1) As there may have been multiple updates made to the document during Last >>> Call, >>> please review the current version of the document: >>> >>> * Is the text in the Abstract still accurate? >>> * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments >>> sections current? >> >> The -07 version addresses the changes that were needed to complete IESG >> Evaluation. >> >>> 2) Please share any style information that could help us with editing your >>> document. For example: >>> >>> * Is your document's format or its terminology based on another document, >>> WG style guide, etc.? If so, please provide a pointer to that information >>> (e.g., "This document's terminology should match DNS terminology in >>> RFC 9499." or "This document uses the style info at >>> <https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide>."). >>> * Is there a general pattern of capitalization or formatting of terms that >>> editors can follow (e.g., "Field names should have initial capitalization." >>> or "Parameter names should be in double quotes." or "<tt/> should be used >>> for token names." etc.)? >> >> It is related to RFC 5280, which defines GeneralName. This document defines >> a new otherName form of GeneralName. >> >>> 3) Please carefully review the entries and their URLs in the >>> References section with the following in mind. Note that we will >>> update as follows unless we hear otherwise at this time: >>> >>> * References to obsoleted RFCs will be updated to point to the current >>> RFC on the topic in accordance with Section 4.8.6 of RFC 7322 >>> (RFC Style Guide). >>> >>> * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be >>> updated to point to the replacement I-D. >>> >>> * References to documents from other organizations that have been >>> superseded will be updated to their superseding version. >>> >>> Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use >>> idnits <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits>. You can also help the >>> IETF Tools Team by testing idnits3 <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits3/> >>> with your document and reporting any issues to them. >> >> All references are already final. >> >>> 4) Is there any text that requires special handling? For example: >>> * Are there any sections that were contentious when the document was >>> drafted? >>> * Are any sections that need to be removed before publication marked as >>> such >>> (e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942)). >>> * Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be edited >>> the same way? >> >> The handling of name constraints was carefully crafted to align with the >> Section 4.2.1.10 of RFC 5280. >> >>> 5) This document uses one or more of the following text styles. >>> Are these elements used consistently? >>> >>> * fixed width font (<tt/> or `) >>> * italics (<em/> or *) >>> * bold (<strong/> or **) >> >> These are not used. >> >>> 6) This document contains sourcecode: >>> >>> * Does the sourcecode validate? >>> * Some sourcecode types (e.g., YANG) require certain references and/or text >>> in the Security Considerations section. Is this information correct? >>> * Is the sourcecode type indicated in the XML? (See information about >>> types: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types.) >> >> Yes, the ASN.1 compiles without errors. >> >> There is pseudocode in Section 3.4 of the document. >> >>> 7) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for editing in >>> kramdown-rfc? >>> If so, please let us know and provide a self-contained kramdown-rfc file. >>> For more >>> information about this experiment, see: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc. >> >> We used kramdown-rfc, and we will gladly participate in the experiment. >> >>> 8) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for completing >>> AUTH48 in >>> GitHub? If so, please let us know and provide all author, AD, and/or >>> document >>> shepherd GitHub usernames. For more information about this experiment, see: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=rpc-github-phase-0-pilot-test. >> >> We are willing. >> >>> 9) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing >>> this >>> document? >> >> No. >> >> Russ >> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
