Hi Mahesh, Thank you for your reply! We have noted your approval here: https://queue.rfc-editor.org/final-review/rfc9986/.
Once we receive approvals from Ashesh and Sonal, we will move this document forward in the publication process. Thank you! Madison Church RFC Production Center > On Jun 3, 2026, at 7:07 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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]
