Hi Madison I alsy reviewed and approve publication.
regards Tadahiko 2026年6月17日(水) 5:10 Corey Bonnell <[email protected]>: > Hi Madison, > Thank you for preparing the document for final review. I have reviewed and > approve publication. > > Thanks, > Corey > > > From: Madison Church <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, > <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> > Cc: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, < > [email protected]>, "RFC Editor"<[email protected]> > Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2026 17:04:50 -0400 > Subject: Re: Correction: Final Review: RFC-to-be 10007 > (draft-ietf-lamps-keyusage-crl-validation) in markdown/GitHub > > Hello Authors, > > We have merged the updates and converted the kramdown-rfc file to RFCXML. > > Please review the XML file and its TXT, HTML, and PDF outputs, and let us > know if any changes are required or if you approve the RFC for publication. > We consider this your final assent that the document is ready for > publication. To request changes or approve your RFC for publication, please > reply to this email. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, as all the parties CCed on > this message need to see your approval. > > Note that we will only make changes in the XML file from this point on. > > XML file: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10007.xml > > Output files: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10007.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10007.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10007.html > > Comprehensive diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10007-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10007-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > For the Final Review status of this document, please see: > https://queue.rfc-editor.org/final-review/rfc10007 > > Thank you, > Madison Church > RFC Production Center > > > On Jun 8, 2026, at 7:37 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > Authors, > > > > While reviewing this document during Final Review, please resolve (as > necessary) > > the following questions, which are also in GitHub issues > > (see https://github.com/rfc-editor-drafts/FinalReview-rfc10007/issues). > > > > 1) We note that the quoted text from Section 6.3.3 of RFC 5280 is > > slightly different in this document. RFC 5280 uses "key usage" rather > than > > "keyUsage". Because it is a quote, we plan to update it to exactly match > RFC 5280; > > please let us know if this is acceptable. Note that we would update both > occurences > > in the document (Section 3 and the "OLD" text in Section 4). The "NEW" > text in > > Section 4 would be kept as-is. > > > >> From RFC 5280: > > (f) Obtain and validate the certification path for the issuer of > > the complete CRL. The trust anchor for the certification > > path MUST be the same as the trust anchor used to validate > > the target certificate. If a key usage extension is present > > in the CRL issuer's certificate, verify that the cRLSign bit > > is set. > > > > Current: > > (f) Obtain and validate the certification path for the issuer of the > > complete CRL. The trust anchor for the certification path MUST be the > > same as the trust anchor used to validate the target certificate. If a > > keyUsage extension is present in the CRL issuer's certificate, verify > > that the cRLSign bit is set. > > > > > > 2) Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online > > Style Guide < > https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> > > and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature > typically > > result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. > > > > Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this > should > > still be reviewed as a best practice. > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > Madison Church and Alice Russo > > RFC Production Center > > > > > > On Jun 8, 2026, [email protected] wrote: > > > > [Resending with corrected subject line.] > > > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > > > RFC Author(s): > > -------------- > > > > Your document has now entered Final Review (previously AUTH48). > > > > The document was edited in kramdown-rfc as part of the RPC pilot test > (see > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc). > > > > > Final Review is being handled in GitHub as part of the GitHub pilot test > > (see > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=rpc-github-phase-0-pilot-test). > > > > > Your document is available for review at: > > https://github.com/rfc-editor-drafts/FinalReview-rfc10007 > > > > Please do the following: > > > > a) accept your invitations to join the repo as collaborators. > > > > b) see the README for details on the Final Review process: > > > https://github.com/rfc-editor-drafts/FinalReview-rfc10007/blob/Approved/README.md > > > > c) review the edits in the RPC-edits pull request: > > https://github.com/rfc-editor-drafts/FinalReview-rfc10007/pulls > > > > d) address the issues: > > https://github.com/rfc-editor-drafts/FinalReview-rfc10007/issues > > > > Once the content of the .md file is stable, we will convert it to .xml > > and provide the .html, .pdf, .txt, and .xml files for review. > > > > You and your coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties > > (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing > > your approval. > > > > Once the document has been reviewed and approved by all of the authors, > > it will be published as an RFC. If an author is no longer available, > > there are several remedies; see the Unavailable Authors section > > (https://authors.ietf.org/rfc-publication-process#unavailable-authors). > > > > Details on the status of your Final Review are here: > > https://queue.rfc-editor.org/final-review/rfc10007/ > > > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > > > RFC Production Center > > > > > >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
