Hi Rohan, Thank you for sending along the file. We have adopted this version with a minor update: we lowercased Extended Key Purpose in Section 4 to match the other uses in the document.
As our other queries were removed from the XML, we believe that you have reviewed them and have no further comments/updates related to the queries; thus, we have marked them as resolved. With regard to the update to the pagination of the PDF: apologies, but we are unable to make a change such as the one you requested at this time. Please review the files below carefully and let us know if you had any further updates you’d like to make or approval of the document in its current form. The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9734.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9734.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9734.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9734.xml The diff files are posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9734-diff.html (comprehensive) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9734-rfcdiff.html (comprehensive side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9734-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 only) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9734-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 side by side) The AUTH48 status page is here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9734 Thank you. RFC Editor/mf > On Feb 4, 2025, at 5:07 PM, Rohan Mahy <rohan.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > FYI: draft-barnes-mimi-identity-arch-02 has been submitted > > Thanks, > -rohan > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 2:44 PM Rohan Mahy <rohan.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > Attached is my revised XML file with some minor changes. > > 1) I am updating draft-barnes-mimi-identity-arch so it will no longer be an > expired draft. I already submitted a PR for my intended changes. My co-author > should review it today or tomorrow. Once it is submitted, I will let you know > > 2) The XML, HTML, and TXT versions look good. The PDF version has the section > headings for References and Normative References at the end of one page with > the references starting on the next one. If it is straightforward to start > Section 6 on the next page, that seems desirable. > > Many thanks, > -rohan > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 7:46 AM Megan Ferguson > <mfergu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > Thanks for the guidance, Rohan and Russ! > > We will await Rohan’s updated XML file with further changes. > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor/mf > > > On Feb 4, 2025, at 8:16 AM, Russ Housley <hous...@vigilsec.com> wrote: > > > > Rohan and RFC Editor: > > > > 1) <!--[rfced] We note a small discrepancy between the ASN.1 snippet in > >> Section 3 and the ASN.1 in Appendix A: the { character at the end > >> of the "id-kp" line in Section 3 is on the following line in the > >> Appendix. Please review and let us know if/how to make these > >> consistent. Might it be possible to simply point the reader to > >> Appendix A instead of repeating the code? > >> > >> Original (Section 3): > >> id-kp OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { > >> iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1) > >> security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) kp(3) } > >> > >> id-kp-imUri OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp TBD1 } > >> > >> Original (Appendix A): > >> id-kp OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= > >> { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1) > >> security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) kp(3) } > >> > >> > >> id-kp-imUri OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp TBD1 } > >> > >> --> > >> I followed the formatting conventions of other similar registrations, > >> including RFC9509, which is the most recent registration of an Extended > >> Key Purpose. It also places the opening curly brace in a different > >> location in the textual definition than it does in the MIB. I would tend > >> to keep the status quo unless there is consensus otherwise from the chairs > >> and ADs. > > > > Both formats will work. ASN.1 compilers will be fine with either one. > > > > Russ > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
