Hi Megan, I have reviewed all four versions of the document just now and the diffs.
It appears that the bibxml entry for draft-barnes-mimi-identity-arch was cached. If I look at this URL (from the XML file), I see the I-D was published in Feb 2025: https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.barnes-mimi-identity-arch.xml Other than refreshing the reference across the text, HTML, and PDF versions of the document, everything else is ready for publication. Many thanks, -rohan On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 1:34 PM Megan Ferguson < mfergu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > 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
