IANA, When getting this document ready for publication, we noticed that the following updates are needed to make the registries match the document:
[Summary - Section numbers in the document were shifted necessitating updates for each registry] 1) Section numbers in the “SSH Agent Protocol Message Type Numbers” registry at https://www.iana.org/assignments/ssh-parameters: All the section numbers were adjusted during the editing process. Please see the table in Section 9.2 of https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9987.txt for the new numbers. 2) Section numbers in the “SSH Agent Key Constraint Numbers” registry at https://www.iana.org/assignments/ssh-parameters have been similarly affected. Please see the table in Section 9.3 of https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9987.txt for the new numbers. 3) Section numbers in the “SSH Agent Signature Flags” registry at https://www.iana.org/assignments/ssh-parameters also need to be updated. Please see the table in Section 9.5 of https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9987.txt for the new numbers. 4) Section numbers in the “SSH Agent Extension Request Names” registry at https://www.iana.org/assignments/ssh-parameters require updates. Please see the table in Section 9.6 of https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9987.txt for the new numbers. 5) Section numbers in the “Extension Names" registry at https://www.iana.org/assignments/ssh-parameters have been similarly affected. Please see the table in Section 9.7 of https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9987.txt for the new numbers. 6) Section numbers in the “Connection Protocol Channel Request Names” registry at https://www.iana.org/assignments/ssh-parameters will also need to be updated. Please see the table in Section 9.8 of https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9987.txt for the new numbers. 7) Section numbers in the “Connection Protocol Channel Types” registry at https://www.iana.org/assignments/ssh-parameters have been similarly affected. Please see the table in Section 9.9 of https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9987.txt for the new numbers. Thank you. Megan Ferguson RFC Production Center > On May 18, 2026, at 4:01 PM, Damien Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Megan, > > All looks good - I approve. > > Thanks, > Damien > > > On Mon, 18 May 2026, Megan Ferguson wrote: > >> 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]
