Hi Megan!One of our dear chairs kicked us about this. Sorry! This email should go to the email address in the I-D and not this one. It was filtered into folders I rarely look at.
That aside: I approve publication of the document in its current form! Viele Grüße, Henk On 19.05.26 19:33, Megan Ferguson wrote:
Authors, We are just checking in on this document as we have received Deb’s AD approval, but no author approvals to date. Upon review, please contact us with either your approval of the document in its current form or any further changes you may have. Please review the document carefully as we do not make changes once published as an RFC. The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943-diff.html The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943-rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943-lastdiff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9943 The cluster AUTH48 status page is available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C557 Thank you. Megan Ferguson RFC Production CenterOn Apr 22, 2026, at 4:11 PM, Megan Ferguson <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Deb, We’ve captured your approval at the AUTH48 status page (below) and will await approvals from each author listed there prior to moving forward in the publication process. The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943-diff.html The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943-rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943-lastdiff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9943 The cluster AUTH48 status page is available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C557 Thank you. Megan Ferguson RFC Production CenterOn Apr 18, 2026, at 4:03 PM, Deb Cooley <[email protected]> wrote: I approve. Deb On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 5:33 PM Megan Ferguson <[email protected]> wrote: All, *AD / *Deb - please review and approve the updates made to the code and surrounding text in the following diff: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943-lastdiff.html (or) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) Antoine - Thank you for sending along this file and particularly for resolving the SVG issues (we have no trouble selecting or searching for the content now). We believe the media type issue raised by Stephane and David (prepending with scitt) has been resolved in the document and it looks like it matches with the IANA registration on the main page (at https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml) but that IANA will still need to update the templates themselves (linked from the main page) to include scitt. NOTE: we can request this update on your behalf when we request the other changes to the template to match the document (upon completion of AUTH48). The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943-diff.html The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943-rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943-lastdiff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side) The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9943 The cluster AUTH48 status page is available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C557 Thank you. Megan Ferguson RFC Production CenterOn Apr 17, 2026, at 7:34 AM, Antoine Delignat-Lavaud <[email protected]> wrote: Dear Megan, Please find attached our latest corrections for 9943. We have checked with author-tools that this compiles without error. These corrections should address all remaining open editorial comments and also includes a few editorial corrections we found while reviewing the editor changes. The corresponding problems in 9942 have also been addressed in a separate update I sent on the AUTH48 thread. Best, AntoineFrom: Megan Ferguson <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 16:05 To: Antoine Delignat-Lavaud <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Birkholz, Henk <[email protected]>; Cedric Fournet <[email protected]>; Yogesh Deshpande <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Amaury Chamayou <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9943 <draft-ietf-scitt-architecture-22> for your review Hi Antoine, Unfortunately, we are unable to create outputs with the XML provided (you can use authors-tools.ietf.org to see the error warnings if you like). Mostly the errors seem to be due to the use of the aasvg —stretch flag, which places the invalid attributes textLength and lengthAdjust in the SVG. If you could update and resubmit to us, we’d appreciate it. Thank you. Megan Ferguson RFC Production CenterOn Apr 14, 2026, at 4:15 AM, Antoine Delignat-Lavaud <[email protected]> wrote: Dear Megan, We have batched all the updates in the enclosed XML file. This includes the updated ASCII art / SVG as discussed. Let us know if you are happy with the remaining rfced opens. Best, Antoine (on behalf of the authors) From: Megan Ferguson <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2026 00:49 To: Antoine Delignat-Lavaud <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Birkholz, Henk <[email protected]>; Cedric Fournet <[email protected]>; Yogesh Deshpande <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected]<[email protected]>; Amaury Chamayou <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected]<[email protected]> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9943 <draft-ietf-scitt-architecture-22> for your review [You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important athttps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Antoine, Thank you for your reply and guidance. We have updated this document with Cédric’s responses to our cluster-wide queries (see our other mail) as well as your responses to the document-specific questions. We had a few follow-up questions/comments related to the document-specific questions marked with [rfced] below (all resolved issues have been removed).On Mar 27, 2026, at 8:23 AM, Antoine Delignat-Lavaud <[email protected]> wrote:2) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions related to SVG used throughout the document:> a) Please review our update to Figure 1 from "3rd-party" to "third-party". It looks like making this change may have affected the spacing of that sentence. Please regenerate.The SVG is generated automatically from this source ASCII syntax: https://github.com/ietf-wg-scitt/draft-ietf-scitt-architecture/blob/main/draft-ietf-scitt-architecture.md?plain=1#L209We can update this and generate a new one, is the correct way to proceed to do that and publish a new draft incorporating this change, or to send the a separate SVG file by email?[rfced] We can do it by email. It may be best to wait until AUTH48 completes to avoid multiple iterations. We have noted the two changes requested to SVG at the AUTH48 status page (see link below).b) We note that the text within at least one (maybe more) of the SVG figures is not able to be selected. Is it possible to modify the SVG using your preferred SVG editing software to improve the rendering of the string in the SVG?We have used https://github.com/martinthomson/aasvg produce the svg.We are not sure what issue you are referring to, we are able to select the text in the figures, could you clarify?[rfced] The SVG seems to have the following limitations: 1) When looking at the PDF version in my browser, searching two-word terms in the SVG does not result in a hit (e.g., "Falsification" results in a hit but "Falsification of” does not). 2) When attempting to copy and paste from one of the SVG figures in the PDF version in my browser, I can select text, but often too much text is highlighted or not the line I am going for. If you used aasvg, perhaps you could tweak the 'spaces' attribute to improve search and selectability? This seems to be an issue with kramdown-rfc's default sometimes -- and seems likely here based on how the following looks: <text x="224" y="404">Falsification</text> <text x="292" y="404">of</text> <text x="324" y="404">test</text> <text x="376" y="404">results</text>3) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions/comments related to the Terminology section: a) We have moved the following paragraph to appear directly before the list of terms defined in this document as the terms borrowed from other documents (e.g., "header") are not capitalized in the text. We have also changed "corresponding" to "following" for clarity. Please review and let us know any objections. Original: When used in text, the corresponding terms are capitalized. To ensure readability, only a core set of terms is included in this section. Current: When used in text, the following terms are capitalized. To ensure readability, only a core set of terms is included in this section.We propose the following additional clarification:Current:When used in text in the sense defined, the following terms are capitalized. To ensure readability, only a core set of terms is included in this section.[rfced] Just noting that the additional sentence you suggest above in (a) actually resolves our question (b) (that was not included in your mail). We will consider question (b) resolved unless we hear otherwise.b) We believe To Be Signed Bytes should be made To-Be-Signed Bytes to match the use in the Terminology section. If this is the case, please update and regenerate the SVG.We agree, should we push a new draft, or send the SVG separately?[rfced] Just noting that this would be another SVG update as mentioned above.11) <!-- [rfced] The reference entries for [SPDX-CBOR] and [SPDX-JSON] are identical. Should these references be condensed down into one reference?They should be condensed down to one reference.[rfced] Please review our update to use [SPDX-CBOR] only and let us know any objections. Please review our updates in the files posted below carefully as we do not make updates once the documents are published as RFCs. The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943.xml The diff files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943-rfcdiff.html (side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9943-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) The AUTH48 status page is viewable here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9943 Further cluster information is viewable here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C557 Thank you. Megan Ferguson RFC Production Center <rfc9943.xml><rfc9943.xml>
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
