[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9676 for your review

Enrico, Pierluigi, I would like to see this document finished, but you must understand that there are many documents in the RFC editor queue.  Please follow Madison's instructions and complete your work.  I am not willing to have them go through many more revisions with you. Eliot On 10.01.

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9694 for your review

Hello Sandy, Many thanks for contacting me, and very sorry for not replying. I have started looking into the issues, but have been held up by my day job, which is currently extremely busy. I'll see what I can do. Regards, Martin. On 2025-01-11 03:51, Sandy Ginoza wrote: Martin, We do not

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9720 for your review

Authors, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) Thank you. RFC Editor On Jan 10, 2025, at 3:53 PM, rfc-

[auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9720 for your review

*IMPORTANT* Updated 2025/01/10 RFC Author(s): -- Instructions for Completing AUTH48 Your document has now entered 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 sever

[auth48] Re: question - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9709 for your review

Russ, Thank you for your reply. The document has been updated accordingly and will be announced shortly. RFC Editor/ar > On Jan 10, 2025, at 12:10 PM, Russ Housley wrote: > > > Alice: > > All of these changes are fine with me. > > Russ > > >> On Jan 10, 2025, at 2:46 PM, Alice Russo wro

[auth48] Re: question - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9708 for your review

Hi Russ, Thanks for your reply and explanation. The text has been updated and the RFC will be announced shortly. Thanks, RFC Editor/sg > On Jan 10, 2025, at 12:08 PM, Russ Housley wrote: > > Sandy: > > Yes, please. > > Sadly, both have been used for many years. They are essentially synon

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9712 for your review

Contact information joeljoseph77...@gmail.com or Whatsapp__+2349012487471__+2348144237688 On Fri, Jan 10, 2025, 12:26 AM Jay Daley via auth48archive < auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > Hi Karen > > Sorry for the delay. Notes below: > > > On 24 Dec 2024, at 15:13, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org w

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9712 for your review

NAME _ JOEL JOSEPH Country Nigeria- Delta State _ughelli South local government _Okwagbe town along Forcados River_ zip code 330103 On Wed, Jan 8, 2025, 10:18 PM Karen Moore via auth48archive < auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > Authors, > > This is a friendly reminder that we await your rep

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9713 for your review

Editors, Thank you for your work so far. Responses to the individual questions are here numbered: 1) You are correct that there is no intention that an operating BPA software is not expected to actually use the IANA registry in-place. The registry is for documentation of the code points. So I thin

[auth48] Re: question - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9709 for your review

Alice: All of these changes are fine with me. Russ > On Jan 10, 2025, at 2:46 PM, Alice Russo wrote: > > Hi Russ, > May we update this section title as follows? > Old: 8. Operations Considerations > New: 8. Operational Considerations > > Rationale: Sounds odd; typically appears as the l

[auth48] Re: question - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9708 for your review

Sandy: Yes, please. Sadly, both have been used for many years. They are essentially synonyms, and the on-the-wire encoding only cares about the (9) part. Russ > On Jan 10, 2025, at 1:59 PM, Sandy Ginoza > wrote: > > Hi Russ, > > For RFC 9709, you suggested "pkcs-9(9)” is correct (replaci

[auth48] question - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9709 for your review

Hi Russ, May we update this section title as follows? Old: 8. Operations Considerations New: 8. Operational Considerations Rationale: Sounds odd; typically appears as the latter. (The former has been used in 3 RFCs in 'Management and Operations Considerations' and 'Implementation and Operati

[auth48] Re: question - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9708 for your review

Hi Russ, For RFC 9709, you suggested "pkcs-9(9)” is correct (replacing "pkcs9(9)”) — does that apply to this document as well? Section 3: id-alg-hss-lms-hashsig OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9) smime(16) alg(3) 17 }

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9695 for your review

Hi Yeshwant, We will wait to hear from you and Chris - thank you for the update. Thank you, RFC Editor/sg > On Jan 10, 2025, at 10:55 AM, Yeshwant Muthusamy wrote: > > Sandy, > > I completed my changes/revisions based on the Editors' comments. I have sent > them to my co-author, Chris Ullri

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9695 for your review

Sandy, I completed my changes/revisions based on the Editors' comments. I have sent them to my co-author, Chris Ullrich, for his review and additions, if any (as we are not in the same location). I hope to hear back from Chris today. We will get back to you as soon as possible. Thanks for your pa

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9694 for your review

Martin, We do not believe we have heard from you regarding the questions below. Please let us know how we may resolve the items listed below. Thank you, RFC Editor/sg > On Dec 23, 2024, at 11:07 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > Martin, > > While reviewing this document during AUTH4

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9695 for your review

Authors, We do not believe we have heard from you regarding the questions below. Please let us know how we may resolve the items listed below. Thank you, RFC Editor/sg > On Dec 23, 2024, at 11:12 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > Authors, > > While reviewing this document during AUTH4

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9698 for your review

Hi Bron, Happy New Year! Just a friendly reminder that we await your review before continuing with the process. Please review the files listed below and let us know if any updates are needed or if you approve the RFC for publication. Thanks, RFC Editor/sg > On Dec 18, 2024, at 3:40 PM, San

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9709 for your review

Hi Russ, Thanks for verifying — we have noted your approval and will continue with publication shortly. Thank you, RFC Editor/sg > On Jan 9, 2025, at 11:04 AM, Russ Housley wrote: > > Sandy: > > I have double checked the ASN.1, and it compiles properly, > > Please proceed with publication.

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9714 for your review

Hi Xiao Min, Authors, We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 page . Authors, please note that we await your review and approval. Please review the files at the locations below and let us know if any updates are needed or if you approve the RFC f

[auth48] Re: *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9704 for your review

Hello Lynne, The changes in section 7 are indeed borderline between technical and editorial, but they respect my view of the IETF/ADD WG consensus. I.e., I approve these changes. Regards -éric From: Lynne Bartholomew Date: Thursday, 9 January 2025 at 20:48 To: Ben Schwartz , Eric Vyncke (evy

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9676 for your review

Hi Authors, [Please note that this email is coming to you from a new email address on our end.] Thank you for your patience and apologies for the delay in response! Regarding the updated file you sent, we were unable to merge these changes because this file was missing updates that were made d

[auth48] Re: *[AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9704 for your review

>> Section 2: >> >> OLD: >> Validated Split Horizon: Indicates that a split-horizon >> configuration for some name is considered "validated" if the >> client has confirmed that a parent of that name has authorized >> this resolver to serve its own responses for that name. >> >> NE