Hi Damien,

After further review and discussion, we have decided not to use <sourcecode 
type=“ssh-message”>; the type will instead be left blank.

Note that we have also converted the items marked as <sourcecode> in Section 8 
into tables.

Please confirm this version works for you, and we can move forward in the 
publication process.

 The files have been posted here (please refresh):
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9987.txt
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9987.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9987.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9987.xml

 The files have been posted here (please refresh):
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9987-diff.html (comprehensive)
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9987-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9987-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 only)
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9987-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side)

  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9987-lastdiff.html (last version to 
this)
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9987-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side)

 The AUTH48 status page is viewable here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9987   

Thank you.

Megan Ferguson
RFC Production Center


> On May 17, 2026, at 5:23 PM, Damien Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 15 May 2026, Megan Ferguson wrote:
> 
>> Hi Damien,
>> 
>> Thank you for your prompt reply and updated file.  We have adopted the XML 
>> with only the slight change of sorting the references.  
> 
> Thanks!
> 
>> Regarding sourcecode types:
>> 
>>>> Either blank or, if it is possible to define a new sourcecode type,
>>>> then "ssh-message" might be a useful addition - I'd certainly use
>>>> it in other drafts I have pending.
>> 
>> We went ahead and sent a request to the mailing list ([email protected].) 
>> mentioned at 
>> https://rpc-wiki.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types for a 
>> new “ssh-message” type.  For this document, would you like to leave them 
>> blank or wait for a new “ssh-message" to be available (these wheels usually 
>> turn in just a few days)?
> 
> I'm happy to wait a couple more days, but if there's no reply say by the end 
> of the week then I think it would be fine to go ahead with a blank sourcecode 
> type.
> 
>> As you otherwise indicated your approval of the document in this form, we 
>> have updated your status to “Approved” at the AUTH48 status page (see link 
>> below).  Once we hear back on the sourcecode type question, we will be ready 
>> to move this document forward in the publication process.
> 
> Excellent, thanks!
> 
>>  The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9987.txt
>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9987.pdf
>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9987.html
>>   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9987.xml
> 
> These look good to me.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Damien


-- 
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to