Sarah: Corey will work with you on the kramdown issues. He is making the final edits that were included in -07 now.
Russ > On Mar 16, 2026, at 5:49 PM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Russ, > > Thank you for the speedy response! > > 1) I don't have any recommendations for <tt> tags -- perhaps a coauthor has a > suggestion/preference? > > 2) I've tried to make the markdown file work with kramdown-rfc, but I'm > running into issues. Could you please attach the self-contained kramdown-rfc > file in your response? > > 3) Thank you for the usernames!! > > Sincerely, > Sarah Tarrant > RFC Production Center > >> On Mar 16, 2026, at 4:17 PM, Russ Housley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> 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]
