Hello Gavin, We do not believe we have heard from you regarding this document's readiness for publication. Please review our questions (see thread below) and files and let us know if any updates are needed.
The files are available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10037.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10037.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10037.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10037.txt Diff files of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10037-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10037-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Details on the status of your Final Review are here: https://queue.rfc-editor.org/final-review/rfc10037/ Best regards, Karen Moore RFC Production Center > On Aug 14, 2026, at 3:04 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > Gavin, > > While reviewing this document during Final Review, please resolve (as > necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file. > > 1) <!--[rfced] Please note that the title has been updated as > follows. Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC > 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). We also made "To" lowercase (which > matches the title of RFC 9803). > > Original: > RDAP Extension for DNS Time-To-Live (TTL Values) > > Current: > Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Extension > for DNS Time-to-Live (TTL) Values > --> > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in > the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. > --> > > > 3) <!--[rfced] This document uses four different terms for the > "ttl0_data" JSON object and its "values"/"remarks" sub-parts: > "property" (used most frequently), "member", "element", and > "attribute". For consistency, please let us know which term > should be used throughout. (We note that RFC 9083 consistently > uses "member" for JSON name/value pairs.) > > Use of "property" (Section 3): > Servers that support this extension MAY include a "ttl0_data" > property in any domain... > > Use of "member" (Section 3): > ...clients that do not implement this specification SHOULD > ignore the "ttl0_data" member. > > Uses of "element" (Section 4.2): > ...should explicitly carve out the "values" property of > "ttl0_data" elements. > > Since the list of record types appearing in "ttl0_data" elements > may change with time... > > Uses of "attribute" (Section 3): > An example domain object with a valid "ttl0_data" attribute is > provided below. > > An example nameserver object with a valid "ttl0_data" attribute > is provided below. > --> > > > 4) <!--[rfced] We note that the use of quotation marks around terms > tagged with <tt> is inconsistent. In most instances, the term is > set off with quotation marks in addition to the <tt> tags (e.g., > "<tt>ttl0_data</tt>"), but in the instances below, the quotation > marks are omitted. For consistency, please let us know if > quotation marks should be added in these instances or removed > from the other instances throughout the document. > > Note: In the last example, "ttl0" has quotation marks but > "rdapConformance" does not. > > Current: > Section 3: > The <tt>ttl0_data</tt> property is an object that has the > following properties: > > Section 3.1: > The DNS record type mnemonics that appear as the property > names in <tt>values</tt> objects MUST be in all capitals... > > Section 3.2: > Servers returning responses containing TTL values MUST include > the string "<tt>ttl0</tt>" in the <tt>rdapConformance</tt> > array. > --> > > > 5) <!--[rfced] Sourcecode examples in Section 3 > > a) In the first sourcecode example, we note an extra space before > "registry". Is this intentional, or should "registry" be moved > over one space to the left? And should a period be added after > "https://domain.example"; for consistency? > > Current: > "description": [ > "For more information about the .example", > " registry policy relating to DS record TTL changes,", > "see https://domain.example"; > > Perhaps: > "description": [ > "For more information about the .example", > "registry policy relating to DS record TTL changes,", > "see https://domain.example."; > > b) In the second sourcecode example, we note a space after > "TTL" - is that intentional, or should the extra space be > deleted? > > Current: > "description": [ > "The .example registry does not permit TTL ", > "values for nameservers to be changed." > > Perhaps: > "description": [ > "The .example registry does not permit TTL", > "values for nameservers to be changed." > --> > > > 6) <!--[rfced] Is the intention to cite the names of the RFCs (option A) > or the protocol and extension names (option B)? Additionally, > please confirm if our updates to the latter half of the sentence > correctly reflect that it is the EPP TTL extension (RFC 9803) > that does not need to be implemented. Note that we also made > "server" plural. > > Original: > This specification is complementary to the Extensible Provisioning > Protocol [RFC5730] (EPP) Mapping for DNS Time-to-Live (TTL) > Values [RFC9803], but registry operators do not need to implement > that extension in their EPP server in order to implement this RDAP > extension. > > Perhaps A (document titles): > This specification is complementary to "Extensible Provisioning > Protocol (EPP)" [RFC5730] and "Extensible Provisioning Protocol > (EPP) Mapping for DNS Time-to-Live (TTL) Values" [RFC9803], but > registry operators do not need to implement the EPP extension > described in [RFC9803] in their EPP servers in order to implement > this RDAP extension. > > or > Perhaps B (protocol/extension names): > This specification is complementary to the Extensible Provisioning > Protocol (EPP) [RFC5730] and the EPP Mapping for DNS Time-to-Live > (TTL) Values extension [RFC9803], but registry operators do not > need to implement that EPP extension in their EPP servers in order > to implement this RDAP extension. > --> > > > 7) <!--[rfced] In the Acknowledgements section, note that we removed > "Sarah Tarrant" as we don't normally include RPC staff names in > this section, especially since multiple editors help to process > the document. > --> > > > 8) <!--[rfced] FYI: We have added an expansion for the following > abbreviation per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). > Please review this and each expansion in the document > carefully to ensure correctness. > > Delegation Signer (DS) > --> > > > 9) <!--[rfced] 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. > > Karen Moore > RFC Production Center > > > On Aug 14, 2026, at 3:02 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > RFC Author(s): > -------------- > > Final Review for RFC-to-be 10037 <draft-ietf-regext-rdap-ttl-extension> > > Your document is now available for Final Review (previously AUTH48). Once it > has been > reviewed and approved by you and all coauthors, 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). > > You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties > (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing > your approval. > > Planning your review > --------------------- > > Please review the following aspects of your document: > > * RFC Editor questions > > Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor > that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as > follows: > > <!-- [rfced] ... --> > > These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. > > * Changes submitted by coauthors > > Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your > coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you > agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. > > * Content > > Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot > change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: > - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) > - contact information > - references > > * Copyright notices and legends > > Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in > RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions > (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). > > * Semantic markup > > Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of > content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> > and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at > <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. > > * Formatted output > > Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the > formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is > reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting > limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. > > > Submitting changes > ------------------ > > To submit changes, please reply to this email using 'REPLY ALL' as all > the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties > include: > > * your coauthors > > * [email protected] (the RPC team) > > * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., > IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the > responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). > > * [email protected], which is an archival mailing list > to preserve discussion about the document while in the RPC editorial > queue; it is not an active discussion list: > > * More info: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc > > * The archive itself: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ > > * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out > of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). > If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you > have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, > [email protected] will be re-added to the CC list and > its addition will be noted at the top of the message. > > You may submit your changes in one of two ways: > > An update to the provided XML file > — OR — > An explicit list of changes in this format > > Section # (or indicate Global) > > OLD: > old text > > NEW: > new text > > You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit > list of changes, as either form is sufficient. > > We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem > beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, > and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in > the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. > > > Approving for publication > -------------------------- > > To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating > that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use 'REPLY ALL', > as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. > > > Files > ----- > > The files are available here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10037.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10037.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10037.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10037.txt > > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10037-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10037-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff of the XML: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10037-xmldiff1.html > > > Tracking progress > ----------------- > > Details on the status of your Final Review are here: > https://queue.rfc-editor.org/final-review/rfc10037/ > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > > -------------------------------------- > RFC 10037 (draft-ietf-regext-rdap-ttl-extension) > > Title : RDAP Extension for DNS Time-To-Live (TTL Values) > Author(s) : Gavin Brown > WG Chair(s) : James Galvin, Antoin Verschuren, Jorge Cano > Area Director(s) : Mohamed Boucadair, Mahesh Jethanandani > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
