Hi Madison, Glad you found it!
Sonal. On Thu, Jun 4, 2026 at 2:01 PM Madison Church <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]
