Hi Madison, I am not sure if I sent my approval already, but here it is, in case I missed sending it
Thanks. > On 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. >> > Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
