Hi, Megan, I support publication of the document. Thank you, Steve
> On May 20, 2026, at 4:27 PM, Henk Birkholz <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 Center >>>> On 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 Center >>>> On 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 Center >>>>> On 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 Center >>>>>> On 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]
