Authors, While reviewing your document during Final Review, please reply to the issues in the GitHub repository (https://github.com/rfc-editor-drafts/FinalReview-rfc10031/issues), which are listed below for backup. (The numbers below correspond to the issue numbers.)
2) FYI, we updated the quoted text to exactly match [RFC5280]. Please let us know if you prefer to rephrase this sentence otherwise. Original: Per Section 4.2.1.10 of [RFC5280], NCE are valid in and "MUST be used only in CA certificates". Current: Per Section 4.2.1.10 of [RFC5280], NCE are valid in and "MUST be used only in a CA certificate". >From Section 4.2.1.10 of [RFC5280]: "...MUST be used only in a CA certificate." 3) Would this section title be more clear as follows? Original: 3.4. Name Constraints Extension Path Processing Perhaps: 3.4. Path Proceassing for the Name Constraints Extension 4) What does "Length" refer to here? Within the same paragraph are instances of 'length' and '.length'. If it's simply the concept of length, then we suggest adding "the". Original: Length is either 6 or 8 representing the encoded name's length. Perhaps (if it's about the field in the preceding sentence): 'length' is either 6 or 8 representing the encoded name's length. Or: The length is either 6 or 8 representing the encoded name's length. 5) Would you like rephrase this to use either "we" (as in 3.4.2.2) or imperative consistently? Original: Starting with an excluded_trees empty set, with each level add to that set any constraints from the CA certificates... Perhaps (using "we"): We start with an excluded_trees empty set, and with each level we add to that set any constraints from the CA certificates... Or (imperative): Start with an excluded_trees empty set, and with each level add to that set any constraints from the CA certificates... 6) Please clarify this sentence. Are there words missing in the phrase "OtherName.MACAddress current excluded_subtrees" ? Original: The union of the set of OtherName.MACAddress current excluded_subtrees with each certificate in the path is as follows: 7) FYI, we updated John's name as follows because previously he let us know that his surname is "Preuß Mattsson". Old: John Mattsson New: John Preuß Mattsson 8) 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. Alice Russo RFC Production Center On Tue, Aug 4, 2026 <[email protected]> wrote: > > *****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-rfc10031 > > 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-rfc10031/blob/Approved/README.md > > c) review the edits in the RPC-edits pull request: > https://github.com/rfc-editor-drafts/FinalReview-rfc10031/pulls > > d) address the issues: > https://github.com/rfc-editor-drafts/FinalReview-rfc10031/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/rfc10031/ > > 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]
