[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9691 for your review

Hi Authors, We have noted your approvals on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9691). Once we receive approval from Rob, we will move this document forward in the publication process. Thank you! RFC Editor/mc > On Dec 5, 2024, at 2:31 AM, Tim Br

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9691 for your review

Hi Tom, Thank you for your prompt reply (and apologies for missing those edits earlier)! We have updated the files accordingly. Please let us know if any further updates are necessary. We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the publication process. The files have b

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

Hi Pierluigi and Enrico, Thank you for your reply! We wanted to let you know that we have received the updated XML file and will send updated files back to you for review in the next few days. We hope you had a wonderful holiday season! Thank you, RFC Editor/mc > On Dec 24, 2024, at 4:30 AM,

[auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9702 for your review

Authors, We have now received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9702). Thank you for your time and attention during the AUTH48 process! We will prepare the document for publication at this time. Best, RFC Editor/mc > On Jan 6, 2025

[auth48] Re: [IANA #1410348] [IANA] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9702 for your review

Hi Amanda, Thank you for the quick reply! The change looks good. Thank you, RFC Editor/mc > On Jan 3, 2025, at 11:59 AM, Amanda Baber via RT wrote: > > Hi, > > We've removed the hyphen from "Data-Plane": > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters > > thanks, > > Amanda Baber > IAN

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9690 for your review

Hi Sean, Thank you for your reply! We have marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page (see http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9690). Since we now have all author approvals, we will move this document forward in the publication process. Thank you both for your time and attention! Best, R

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

Hi Authors and Eliot, Thank you for your replies! Authors - To confirm, you are suggesting that the example be shown as the following (Removing the U+ notation and keeping the Hebrew format): (e.g., "September 2, 99" will be written in ISO plus Hebrew format as "1999-09-02|אלול,תשנ"ט.21")

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9678 for your review

Hi Jari, This is a friendly weekly reminder that this document awaits your approval. Please see the thread below for links to the current version and let us know if we can be of assistance as you complete your AUTH48 review. Once we receive your approval, we will move this document forward in t

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9696 for your review

Hi Tony, Thank you for your reply. We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9696). Once we receive approval from Dmitry, we will move this document forward in the publication process. Thank you, RFC Editor/mc > On Feb 6, 2025, at 3:31 AM,

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9719 for your review

Hi Xufeng, Thank you for informing us of the situation. If removing your name as an author is needed, would you like to be listed as a contributor (it would mean adding a Contributors section) or mentioned in the Acknowledgements section? Please note that we are currently waiting on approval fr

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9732 for your review

Hi Authors, Jie - Thank you for your quick reply! We have updated the document as requested and your approval has been noted on the AUTH48 status page (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9732). All of our questions have been addressed. All - Please review the document carefully to ensure

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9732 for your review

Hi Jie and Stewart, Thank you for your replies. We have updated the document according to Jie’s response and have a few followup questions/comments. >>> 4) > > Actually the last sentence "so as to meet the requirements... " is related to > both bullets. > > Maybe split it as a separate bull

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9691 for your review

Hi Rob, Thank you for your reply! We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9691). Now that we have all author approvals, we will ask IANA to make their updates. Thank you, RFC Editor/mc > On Dec 10, 2024, at 4:36 PM, Rob

[auth48] [IANA] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9691 for your review

IANA, Please make the following updates to the registries listed below: 1) For the "SMI Security for S/MIME CMS Content Type (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1)" registry, please add Section 2.1 to the reference column for Decimal 50 (

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

Hi Authors, This is a friendly reminder that we await answers to the questions below and your review of the document before continuing with the publication process. Thank you, RFC Editor/mc > On Nov 21, 2024, at 2:32 PM, ENRICO FRANCESCONI > wrote: > > P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} Dear

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9610 for your review

Greetings, This is a friendly weekly reminder that this document awaits your attention. Please review the document-specific questions and AUTH48 announcement. Let us know if we can be of assistance as you begin the AUTH48 review process. The AUTH48 status page of this document is viewable at:

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9610 for your review

Hi Neil, Thank you for your reply! We have updated the document to reflect your updates. We have no further followup questions at this time. 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 u

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9610 for your review

Hi Neil, Thank you for your reply! We have posted the updated files below that contain your most recent changes. 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

[auth48] Re: [IANA #1408906] [IANA] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9691 for your review

Hi Sabrina, The changes look good! Thank you! RFC Editor/mc > On Dec 11, 2024, at 5:11 PM, Sabrina Tanamal via RT > wrote: > > Hi Madison, > > These changes are complete: > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers > https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpki > > Thanks, > > Sabrina Tan

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9691 for your review

Authors, We have now received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9691). Thank you for your attention and guidance during the AUTH48 process! We will prepare the document for publication at this time. Best regards, RFC Editor/mc > On

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

Pierluigi and Enrico, Thank you for your review. If we understand correctly, you are updating your markdown source file to match the RPC-edited file. You mentioned "can submit the new, and hopefully final, version" - we are unsure what is meant by "final version". Please note that while you

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9702 for your review

Hi Yingzhen and Acee, Thank you both for your replies! We have updated the files and posted them below. All of our questions have been addressed. Please see one followup comment in this thread under question 3. Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make chang

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9610 for your review

Hi Neil, Thank you for your reply! We will keep the text as is. Since we have received your approval, we consider AUTH48 complete (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9610). Thank you for your attention and guidance during the AUTH48 process! We will prepare the document for publication a

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9696 for your review

Hi Authors, Zheng - We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page (please see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9696). Yuehua - Thank you for your quick reply! We have updated the document to reflect your proposed change in the updated files below. Please review the document careful

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9696 for your review

Hi Yuehua, Thank you for your reply! We have updated the document accordingly and all of our questions have 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 yo

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9696 for your review

Hi Yuehua, Thank you for your reply! We have marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9696). Once we receive approvals from Dmitry, Pascal, and Tony, we will move this document forward in the publication process. Thank you! RFC Editor/mc > On D

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9702 for your review

Hi Authors, Acee - Thank you for your reply! We have updated the files below to reflect your proposed changes. Please review the files carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once the document has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any further updates or with your app

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9702 for your review

Hi Acee, Thank you for your quick reply! We have added your approval to the AUTH48 status page (please see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9702). Once we receive approvals from Yingzhen, Stephane, and Jeff, we will move this document forward in the publication process. Thank you! RFC Edi

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9691 for your review

Hi Tom, Thank you for your reply and thorough review! We have updated the document as requested and all of our questions have 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

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9696 for your review

Hi Dmitry and Tony, This is a friendly reminder that we have yet to hear back from you regarding this document’s readiness for publication. Please review the AUTH48 status page (https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9696) for further information and the previous messages in this thread for pe

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9690 for your review

Hi Russ, We appreciate your quick reply! We have posted the updated files and just have one followup question in this thread regarding item #5 (see the comment marked [rfced] below). Updated files (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9690.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9690 for your review

Hi Sean and Russ, Thank you both for your replies! We have updated the files as requested. In addition to Sean’s section pointers for changes related to "RSA-KEM", we also corrected an instance that appears in Appendix B.2 to "RSA-KEM algorithm". Let us know if there are any additional concerns

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9690 for your review

Hi Russ, Thank you for your quick reply! In Section 1.6, we have updated id-rsa-kem-spki to use non-breaking hyphens (we also updated id‑kem‑rsa since it was split in the html output). Your approval has been noted on the AUTH48 status page (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9690). Updat

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

Hi Authors, Thank you for your patience as we work on our end to update this document! We have posted the updated files below that include your changes. We just have a few followup questions/comments. Please feel free to respond to them in this email thread and let us know how we should update

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9696 for your review

Hi Dmitry and Tony, This is a reminder that we have yet to hear back from you regarding this document’s readiness for publication. Please review the AUTH48 status page (https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9696) for further information and the previous messages in this thread. Thank you, RF

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9719 for your review

Hi Shaowen and Xufeng, This is a reminder that we have yet to hear back from you regarding this document’s readiness for publication. Please review the AUTH48 status page (http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9719) for further information and the previous messages in this thread. Thank you, R

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9719 for your review

Hi Yuehua and Bruno, Thank you both for your replies. We have noted your approval and incorporated our edits into the updated files below per Bruno’s guidance. In addition to our updates, note that we also added tags to italicize term "ThreeWay" for consistency with RFCs 9692 and 9696. The up

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

Hi Authors, Thank you for your reply! We have updated the document per your response. Please see below for comments, followup questions, and updated files. > 1) For Section 3.6 (Date Format), we are having trouble with the added > Hebrew characters because the text mixes LTR (left to right) an

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9690 for your review

Hi Sean, This is a friendly weekly reminder that we have yet to hear back from you regarding this document’s readiness for publication. The AUTH48 status page of this document can be found here: http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9690 The updated files can be found in the thread below. Once

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

Hi Pierluigi and Enrico, Thank you for your reply and apologies for any confusion on our end! For the following: > In order to avoid any additional misunderstanding, we kindly ask you to > confirm that if we have to update > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9676.xml by amending it with th

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9696 for your review

Hi *Pascal and Yuehua, Thank you both for your replies! We have updated the document as requested and updated files have been posted below. We now await approvals from Dmitry and Tony. *Pascal - We were notified that your email address has changed. Would you like for us to update the Authors’

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9696 for your review

Hi Pascal, Thank you for the quick confirmation. We have updated your contact information as requested. Once we receive approval from Dmitry and Tony, we will move this document forward in the publication process. Thank you! RFC Editor/mc > On Jan 13, 2025, at 11:12 AM, Pascal Thubert wrote:

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9702 for your review

Hi Stephane, Thank you for your reply! We have added your approval to the AUTH48 status page (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9702). Now that we have all author approvals, we will now ask IANA to make updates to the "IGP MSD-Types" registry. Thank you! RFC Editor/mc > On Jan 3, 2025,

[auth48] [IANA] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9702 for your review

IANA, For the "Data-Plane" column header listed in the "IGP MSD-Types" registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml#igp-msd-types), please remove the hyphen in "Data-Plane". Original: Data-Plane Updated: Data Plane Thank you, RFC Editor/mc > On Jan 3, 2025,

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9719 for your review

Hi Sandy, Thank you for your quick reply! We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page (please see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9719). Once we receive approvals from all parties listed on the AUTH48 status page (as well as a response to our queries), we will move this document

[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: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9696 for your review

Hi Dmitry, Pascal, and Tony, [Note that this email is coming to you from a new email address on our end.] This is another friendly reminder that we have yet to hear back from of you regarding this document’s readiness for publication. Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9702 for your review

Hi Yingzhen, Thank you for your reply! We have updated the AUTH48 status page with your approval (please see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9702). Once we receive approval from Stephane, we will move this document forward in the publication process. Thank you! RFC Editor/mc > On Dec 20,

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9696 for your review

Hi Authors, This is a friendly reminder that we have yet to hear back from some of you regarding this document’s readiness for publication. We await approvals from Dmitry, Pascal, and Tony. Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been p

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

Hi Authors, Thank you for your patience as we work through this issue. We have updated the document as requested and incorporated the new U+ and UTF-8 notations for the Hebrew date. We ask that you verify the changes to ensure our updates are correct. After some further testing on our end, w

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9719 for your review

Hi Shaowen and Xufeng, Shaowen - This is a friendly reminder that we have yet to hear back from you regarding this document’s readiness for publication. Please review the previous messages in this thread for details. Xufeng - Feel free to let us know if either suggestion (being listed as a con

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9732 for your review

Hi Takuya, Thank you for your quick reply! We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9732). Once we receive approvals from Stewart, we will move this document forward in the publication process. Thank you! RFC Editor/mc > On Feb 13, 2025,

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9719 for your review

Hi Xufeng, Thank you for your reply (and thank you for your patience throughout this process). We have updated your affiliation to "Individual". Please review the document (specifically the document header and Authors’ Addresses section) and let us know if you approve this document for publicat

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9761 for your review

Greetings, This is a friendly weekly reminder that this document awaits your attention. Please review the document-specific questions and AUTH48 announcement. Let us know if we can be of assistance as you begin the AUTH48 review process. The AUTH48 status page of this document is viewable at:

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9761 for your review

Hi Tirumal, Thank you for your reply! We have updated the document accordingly and all of our questions have 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 y

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9742 for your review

Hi Joe, Thank you for your reply! We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9742). Once we receive approvals from all authors listed on the AUTH48 status page, we will move this document forward in the publication process. Thank you! RFC Ed

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9761 for your review

Hi Tirumal, Thank you for your reply! We have updated the document accordingly and have some followup queries marked with [rfced]. [rfced] Upon sending the initial AUTH48 email, we note that the address "blake.ander...@cisco.com" returned an "Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender" message. Is th

[auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9761 for your review

Hi Paul, This is a friendly reminder that we await your review and approval for the changes listed in the thread below. These changes are best viewed in the diff files below: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9761-auth48diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9761-auth48rfcdiff.html

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9742 for your review

Hi Authors, This is a friendly reminder that we await answers to the followup questions below and your review of the document before continuing with the publication process. Thank you, RFC Editor/mc > On Mar 25, 2025, at 11:36 AM, Madison Church > wrote: > > Hi Mahesh, > > Thank you for y

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9761 for your review

Hi Authors, Dan - Thank you for your reply! We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9761). Tirumal - Thank you for your response to our followup questions! We have updated the document as requested. We have one followup comment and updated

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

Hi Eliot and Enrico, Thank you both for your messages and apologies for the delayed response on our end! At the moment, we are currently waiting for a tools update that will fix the PDF output of the left-to-right and right-to-left text in Section 3.6. The tools update that includes this fix

[auth48] Re: [E] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9742 for your review

Hi Authors, Thank you all for your replies! We have left the YANG module as is (Option A). 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 updat

[auth48] [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9761 for your review

Hi Authors and *Paul, Thank you for your replies! We have noted your approvals on the AUTH48 status page for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9761). *Paul - As the Responsible AD for this document, please review and approve the following changes. These changes are best v

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9742 for your review

Hi Authors, Joe - Thank you for the confirmation! All - Now that our questions have 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 docum

[auth48] Re: [E] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9742 for your review

Hi Authors, This is a friendly reminder that we have yet to hear back from some of you regarding this document’s readiness for publication. Please review the AUTH48 status page (http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9742) for further information and the previous messages in this thread for pert

[auth48] Re: [E] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9742 for your review

Hi Joe, Thank you for your reply! As of right now, we are still awaiting approvals from Mahesh, Clyde, and Kiran (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9742). Thank you, RFC Editor/mc > On Apr 8, 2025, at 9:56 AM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote: > > Madison, who haven’t you heard from? I thin

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

Hi Pierluigi, Thank you for your reply! We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9676). Once we receive approval from Caterina, we will move this document forward in the publication process. Thank you! RFC Editor/mc > On Apr 21, 2025, at

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9742 for your review

Hi Med, Thank you for your reply (and apologies for missing those changes earlier)! We have updated the document accordingly. If there are any additional updates needed, please let us know. Otherwise, let us know if you approve the document in its current form as AD. Once we receive your approv

[auth48] [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9742 for your review

Hi Authors, *Warren, Authors - Thank you for your replies! We have noted your approvals on the AUTH48 status page (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9742). *Warren - As Responsible AD for this document, please review and approve the following addition to the Normative References as per

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9761 for your review

Hi Paul, Authors, Paul - Thank you for your reply! We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9761). Authors - We will now ask IANA to make their updates. Thank you, RFC Editor/mc > On Apr 9, 2025, at 7:38 AM, Paul Wouters wrote: > > Thank

[auth48] Re: [IANA #1416969] [IANA] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9761 for your review

Hi Sabrina, The changes look good. Thank you! RFC Editor/mc > On Apr 14, 2025, at 12:11 PM, Sabrina Tanamal via RT > wrote: > > Hi Madison, > > These changes are complete: > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/acl-tls > > Thanks, > Sabrina > > On Mon Apr 14 14:27:05 2025, mchu...@staff.r

[auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9761 for your review

All, We have now received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9761). Thank you for your attention and guidance during the AUTH48 process! We will prepare the document for publication at this time. Best regards, RFC Editor/mc > On Apr

[auth48] Re: [IANA] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9761 for your review

Resending with my correct address. Thank you, RFC Editor/mc > On Apr 14, 2025, at 9:22 AM, Madison Church wrote: > > IANA, > > Please make the following capitalization changes to the Description column in > the "ACL (D)TLS Paramaters" registry > (https://www.iana.org/assignments/acl-tls/acl-

[auth48] [IANA] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9761 for your review

IANA, Please make the following capitalization changes to the Description column in the "ACL (D)TLS Paramaters" registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/acl-tls/acl-tls.xhtml#acl-dtls-parameters): 1) pre-shared key exchange mode to Pre-shared key exchange mode 2) Cipher Suite to Cipher suite

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

Hi All, Caterina - Thank you for your response! We’ve marked your approval on the AUTH48 status page (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9676). We have now received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete. Thank you all for your time and patience throughout this process! We w

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9742 for your review

Hi Med, Authors, Med - Thank you for your reply! We have noted your approval as AD on the AUTH48 status page (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9742). Authors - Now that we have all necessary approvals, we will move this document forward in the publication process at this time. Thank you

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

Hi Enrico, Thank you for your reply! We have updated the document as requested. Please take a moment to review the changes and ensure they appear as desired. For the following: >> 4) We note that the ISO reference has been withdrawn and is no longer >> available. There are two updated versions

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9742 for your review

Hi All, As we began preparing this document for publication, we noted one use of the term "syslogd facility" in the text pasted below. This is the only instance of the term, and we also acknowledge that the term "syslog facility" is also used throughout the document. We wanted to confirm if "sy

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9742 for your review

Hi Joe, Thanks for your quick reply! We will make this update and resume the publication process. RFC Editor/mc > On Apr 28, 2025, at 3:52 PM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote: > > Thanks for catching this, Madison. This facility is reserved for the syslog > daemon itself. I think we can just ex

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9782 for your review

Hi Thomas, Thank you for your response! We have updated the document per your reply and all of our questions have been addressed. Please see inline for a few followup comments. > On Apr 25, 2025, at 1:46 AM, Thomas Fossati wrote: > > Dear Editor, > > On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 at 05:33, wrote: >>

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9781 for your review

Hi Carsten, Thank you for your reply! We have updated the document per your response and have a few followup questions/comments inline marked with [rfced]. > On May 1, 2025, at 8:23 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > > RFC Editor, > > thank you for editing this document and raising these questions.

[auth48] Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9742 for your review

Hi Med, Thank you for your reply and additional feedback! We have updated the document accordingly. Please see comments inline. 1) For (2), > (2) There are actually no messages shown in that figure > > CURRENT: > Syslog consists of originators and collectors. The following diagram > shows

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

Hi Enrico and Eliot, Thank you both for your replies! We have noted your approvals for this document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9676). Once we receive approvals from Pierluigi and Caterina, we will move this document forward in the publication process. Thank you! RFC Editor/mc

[auth48] [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9782 for your review

Hi Authors, *Debbie, *Debbie - As responsible AD for this document, please review the removal of RFC 7519 from the Normative References section and let us know if you approve. Authors - Thank you for your reply! We have updated the files as requested and all of our questions have been addressed

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9719 for your review

Hi Xufeng and Sandy, Thank you both for the updates! We will make note of the situation and wait to hear back from you. Thank you! RFC Editor/mc > On Feb 16, 2025, at 8:10 PM, > wrote: > > Hi Jeffrey, Xufeng, Madison and Shaowen, > I sent a message to Shaowen before and he is waiting for t

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

Hi Authors, Thank you for your reply and apologies for the delayed response. We have updated the files as you have requested on our end, but we are still testing out a few potential solutions and workarounds. We hope to send updated files shortly. In the meantime, for the following: >> • A

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9742 for your review

Hi Joe and Mahesh, Thank you for your replies! We have updated the document as requested. We also have a few followup items in the thread below for you to review. 1) FYI - In Sections 6.1 and 6.2, we removed the note re: '\' line wrapping because that convention is not used in those sections. (

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9719 for your review

Hi Shaowen and *Xufeng, Shaowen - Thank you for your reply! We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this document [1]. *Xufeng - If more time is needed on your end for approval or if there are any additional updates/changes regarding your situation, please let us know. Also n

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9742 for your review

Hi Joe, Thank you for your reply! We have updated the document as requested. Please see below for updated files as well as a followup query. > >> 9) > >> [JMC] Your mods to Security Considerations are good. I think breaking > >> out the boilerplate text and the additional “logging” text into

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9719 for your review

Hi Xufeng, We have updated your affiliation to "The MITRE Corporation" as requested. Please also see mail sent from James Guichard (Responsible AD for RFC 9719) on March 4th. We will await your response before moving forward. Thank you, RFC Editor/mc > On Mar 4, 2025, at 11:12 AM, James Guicha

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9696 for your review

Hi Dmitry, This is a friendly reminder that we have yet to hear back from you regarding this document’s readiness for publication. Please review the AUTH48 status page (http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9696) for further information as well as the previous messages in the AUTH48 thread. We

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9627 for your review

Hi Jonathan, Thank you for your reply! We have updated the document per your response. Please see the thread below for followup comments and updated files. >>> 3) > > Aren’t these all already defined in Section 2, or am I missing something? 1) Thank you for pointing this out. When re-reviewin

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9732 for your review

Hi Zhenqiang and Young, Thank you both for your quick replies! We have updated the document per Zhenqiang’s suggestions and noted your approvals on the AUTH48 status page (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9732). Updated files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-e

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9696 for your review

Hi Dmitry, Thank you for your reply! We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page (please see http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9696). We have now received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete. Thank you for your attention and guidance during the AUTH48 process! We w

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

Hi Eliot, Authors, At this time, we are currently requesting that the authors review all versions of the document (text/html/pdf/diff files) and provide their approval. Once we receive approvals from all parties listed on the AUTH48 status page [1] (including Eliot's as the ISE), we would then

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9742 for your review

Hi Authors, Joe - Thank you for your reply! We have updated the document as requested. All - Please review the updated files and let us know if you approve the document in its current form. Once we receive approvals from each person listed on the AUTH48 status page, we will move forward in the

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9742 for your review

Hi Mahesh, Thank you for your reply! We have updated the document accordingly and have two followup items. > On Mar 21, 2025, at 6:04 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani > wrote: > > Hi Madison, > > Sorry for getting to this review a little late. I have some minor editorial > comments and are based on

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9719 for your review

Hi Authors, Xufeng - Thank you for your reply! We have added your approval to the AUTH48 status page (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9719). All - We have received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete. Thank you for your time and attention during the AUTH48 process! We

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

Hi All, Thank you for your continued patience as we move forward with this document! We have updated the files as requested to use hyphens in the Hebrew date example. Additionally, the UTF-8 and U+ notations have been updated to reflect those changes. We ask that you review the updates to ensur

[auth48] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9781 for your review

Hi Carsten, Thank you for your detailed replies! We have updated the document accordingly. See inline for followup comments and updated files. > On May 6, 2025, at 9:26 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: > > Hi Madison, > > Thank you for the update. > On your followup questions: > 1)

  1   2   >