Hi Sonal, Apologies for missing your earlier mail! We have noted your approval and updated your email and affiliation. See https://queue.rfc-editor.org/final-review/rfc9986/.
Updated files are here: 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 Diffs: 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 Ashesh, we will ask IANA to update the "BFD Authentication Types" registry. Afterwards, this document (and RFC-to-be 9985) will move forward in the publication process. Thank you! Madison Church RFC Production Center > On Jun 4, 2026, at 3:38 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Madison, > > Sonal did respond with an approval and asked for her contact information to > be updated. Did you see it? > > Thanks > > p.s. Let me ping Ashesh. > >> On Jun 4, 2026, at 9:19 AM, Madison Church <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> 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] >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > Mahesh Jethanandani > [email protected] > > > > > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
