Hi Madison, I would like to update my author email address to "[email protected]" My current company can be updated to Arrcus, Inc.
I approve the draft. Best regards, Sonal. On Tue, Jun 2, 2026 at 12:00 PM Madison Church <[email protected]> wrote: > Alan, *Ketan, > > *Ketan - We have noted your approval for moving RFC 8341 to the Normative > References section. > > Alan - Thank you for your reply! We have updated the document per your > response and noted your approval on the Final Review (formerly AUTH48) > status page; see https://queue.rfc-editor.org/final-review/rfc9986/. > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9986.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9986.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9986.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9986.xml > > Updated diff files have been posted here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9986-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9986-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9986-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9986-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by > side) > > Once we receive approval from Mahesh, Sonal, and Ashesh, we will move this > document forward in the publication process. > > Thank you! > > Madison Church > RFC Production Center > > > On Jun 2, 2026, at 11:27 AM, Alan DeKok <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On May 29, 2026, at 4:47 PM, Madison Church < > [email protected]> wrote: > >>>> 17) <!-- [rfced] For the "[ISAAC_]" reference, we recommend changing > the citation > >>>> tag since "[ISAAC]" and "[ISAAC_]" may be easily confused. May we > update > >>>> "[ISAAC_]" to "[ISAAC+]" or "[ISAAC-Plus]"? > >>>> --> > >>> This question to be answered by Alan and the SEC-ADs. > >> > >> [rfced] We will wait for further guidance from Alan before proceeding > with any updates for the "[ISAAC_]" reference. > > > > This should be "[ISAAC-Plus]" for clarity. > > > >> [rfced] After further review, we have decided to use "sequence number" > and "secret key" in this document for consistency across RFC 5880 and > RFC-to-be 9985 (this excludes instances where the terms are paired with > another noun, e.g., "Sequence Number field"). Please let us know any > objections. > > > > This is fine. > > > >>>> Meticulous Keyed ISAAC > >>>> Meticulous keyed ISAAC > >>> The forms I see these in are paired to the sha-1 and md-5 forms of the > mode. We are looking for consistency for those pairings. The > capitalization for keyed can match the other instances. > >>>> Meticulous Keyed ISAAC Keyed > >>>> [Note: Is the second "Keyed" correct here? There are 4 instances.] > >>> These instances look like a search and replace issue. I believe the > intention here is that each of these instances is intended to be > "Meticulous Keyed ISAAC, ISAAC format". This should be audited by Alan. > >> > >> [rfced] We will wait for further guidance from Alan before making the > updates as described above for "Meticulous Keyed ISAAC Keyed". We have > updated all other terms for consistency. > > > > Yes. The 4 instances can be changed to "Meticulous Keyed ISAAC, ISAAC > format". > > > > Alan DeKok. > > > >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
