Hi Murray, Thanks for the reply. We marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9749).
Once we receive Daniel’s approval, we can move this document forward in the publication process. Best regards, RFC Editor/rv > On Mar 12, 2025, at 1:47 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > This is approved. > > -MSK, ART AD > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 2:27 PM Rebecca VanRheenen > <rvanrhee...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > Hi Daniel and Murray* > > Daniel - Thanks for the reply; we updated the document accordingly. All of > our questions have now been addressed. Please review the document carefully > to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published > as an RFC. Contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the > document in its current form. > > *Murray - As AD, please review and approve the changes in the last two > paragraphs in Section 3 and normative reference [X9.62] (which has been > replaced). These changes are best viewed in this diff file: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9749-auth48diff.html. > > > — FILES (please refresh) — > > Updated XML file: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9749.xml > > Updated output files: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9749.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9749.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9749.html > > Diff files showing all changes made during AUTH48: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9749-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9749-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff files showing all changes: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9749-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9749-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9749 > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/rv > > > > On Mar 10, 2025, at 4:50 AM, Daniel Gultsch <dan...@gultsch.de> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Sat, Mar 8, 2025 at 3:39 AM Rebecca VanRheenen > > <rvanrhee...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > > >> Thank you for responding to our questions. We updated the document > >> accordingly (see files below). > >> > >> We have a followup question. We replaced the [X9.62] reference with [SEC1] > >> and also updated "[X9.62] Annex A” to "Section 2.3.3 of [SEC1]” as you > >> suggest. Are any updates needed for “X9.62” in the following sentence? > >> Section 3.2 of RFC 8292 does mention "X9.62 encoding”. > >> > >> Current: > >> Additionally, as noted in Section 3.2 of [RFC8292], the X9.62 > >> encoding simplifies key comparisons and is more compact than > >> alternative formats. > > > > > > Good call. Let’s make the following change. > > > > Old: > > Additionally, as noted in Section 3.2 of [RFC8292], the X9.62 encoding > > simplifies key comparisons and is more compact than alternative > > formats. > > > > New: > > Additionally, as noted in Section 3.2 of [RFC8292], the X9.62 encoding > > (which is compatible with SEC1 encoding) simplifies key comparisons > > and is more compact than alternative formats. > > > > cheers > > Daniel > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
