Hi Sarah, https://github.com/CBonnell/draft-housley-lamps-macaddress-on/blob/eabe72abfd2af40aa7c34192bf45ae5cea99cf6e/draft-ietf-lamps-macaddress-on.md?plain=1 now contains the latest, including the changes that Mike made to the formatting.
Does this file work with your tooling? If not, please let me know the specific error you're encountering so I can troubleshoot from this side. Thanks, Corey ________________________________ From: Russ Housley <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2026 9:33 PM To: Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> Cc: Corey Bonnell <[email protected]>; Joe Mandel <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Mike StJohns <[email protected]>; Tim Hollebeek <[email protected]>; Deb Cooley <[email protected]>; RFC Editor <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Document intake questions about <draft-ietf-lamps-macaddress-on-07> 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]
