Hi Madison, My apologies for the delayed response. I have reviewed and approve the publication.
Tadahiko, Thanks for the heads up on this. Best regards, Tomofumi On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 1:12 PM Tadahiko Ito <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi madison > > Tomofumi's email address was old one. > I am forwarding this email to Tomofumi's new address (which is one written > in the document) > > regards Tadahiko > > 2026年6月17日(水) 5:17 Tadahiko Ito <[email protected]>: > >> 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]
