Hi Russ, Thank you for the speedy response!
1) I don't have any recommendations for <tt> tags -- perhaps a coauthor has a suggestion/preference? 2) I've tried to make the markdown file work with kramdown-rfc, but I'm running into issues. Could you please attach the self-contained kramdown-rfc file in your response? 3) Thank you for the usernames!! Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Mar 16, 2026, at 4:17 PM, Russ Housley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Mar 16, 2026, at 4:54 PM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Russ, >> >> Thank you for your reply. We have three remaining questions: >> >> 1) Regarding text styling, we did find <tt>1.3.6.1.5.5.7.8.12</tt> in >> Section 3: >> >> In this document "otherName", "OtherName" and "GeneralName.otherName" >> all refer to a GeneralName.otherName field included in a SAN or IAN. >> The new name form is identified by the OBJECT IDENTIFIER (OID) >> id-on-MACAddress (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.8.12) and declared below using the >> OTHER-NAME class declaration syntax. >> >> This is the only instance. Are these tags correct? > > I am fine with whatever styling you suggest. > >> 2) Regarding the markdown experiment, is the following markdown code up to >> date? If not, please attach the self-contained kramdown-rfc file in your >> response. >> >> >> https://github.com/CBonnell/draft-housley-lamps-macaddress-on/blob/main/draft-ietf-lamps-macaddress-on.md?plain=1 > > I believe so. Since the Internet-Draft repository was closed for IETF 125 > when -07 was posted, the "-latest" was changed to "-07" by hand so that the > Secretariat could post the draft with AD approval. > >> 3) Regarding the GitHub experiment, please provide all author, AD, and/or >> document shepherd GitHub usernames. > > Russ Housley = russhousley > Corey Bonnell = CBonnell > Joe Mandel = mandelj7 > Tomofumi Okubo = tomofumiokubo > Michael StJohns = mstjohns > > Tim Hollebeek = timfromdigicert > > Deb Cooley = debcooley > >> >> Sincerely, >> Sarah Tarrant >> RFC Production Center >> >>> On Mar 16, 2026, at 3:38 PM, Russ Housley <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Sarah. >>> >>>> 1) As there may have been multiple updates made to the document during >>>> Last Call, >>>> please review the current version of the document: >>>> >>>> * Is the text in the Abstract still accurate? >>>> * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments >>>> sections current? >>> >>> The -07 version addresses the changes that were needed to complete IESG >>> Evaluation. >>> >>>> 2) Please share any style information that could help us with editing your >>>> document. For example: >>>> >>>> * Is your document's format or its terminology based on another document, >>>> WG style guide, etc.? If so, please provide a pointer to that information >>>> (e.g., "This document's terminology should match DNS terminology in >>>> RFC 9499." or "This document uses the style info at >>>> <https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide>."). >>>> * Is there a general pattern of capitalization or formatting of terms that >>>> editors can follow (e.g., "Field names should have initial >>>> capitalization." >>>> or "Parameter names should be in double quotes." or "<tt/> should be used >>>> for token names." etc.)? >>> >>> It is related to RFC 5280, which defines GeneralName. This document >>> defines a new otherName form of GeneralName. >>> >>>> 3) Please carefully review the entries and their URLs in the >>>> References section with the following in mind. Note that we will >>>> update as follows unless we hear otherwise at this time: >>>> >>>> * References to obsoleted RFCs will be updated to point to the current >>>> RFC on the topic in accordance with Section 4.8.6 of RFC 7322 >>>> (RFC Style Guide). >>>> >>>> * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be >>>> updated to point to the replacement I-D. >>>> >>>> * References to documents from other organizations that have been >>>> superseded will be updated to their superseding version. >>>> >>>> Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use >>>> idnits <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits>. You can also help the >>>> IETF Tools Team by testing idnits3 <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits3/> >>>> with your document and reporting any issues to them. >>> >>> All references are already final. >>> >>>> 4) Is there any text that requires special handling? For example: >>>> * Are there any sections that were contentious when the document was >>>> drafted? >>>> * Are any sections that need to be removed before publication marked as >>>> such >>>> (e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942)). >>>> * Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be edited >>>> the same way? >>> >>> The handling of name constraints was carefully crafted to align with the >>> Section 4.2.1.10 of RFC 5280. >>> >>>> 5) This document uses one or more of the following text styles. >>>> Are these elements used consistently? >>>> >>>> * fixed width font (<tt/> or `) >>>> * italics (<em/> or *) >>>> * bold (<strong/> or **) >>> >>> These are not used. >>> >>>> 6) This document contains sourcecode: >>>> >>>> * Does the sourcecode validate? >>>> * Some sourcecode types (e.g., YANG) require certain references and/or >>>> text >>>> in the Security Considerations section. Is this information correct? >>>> * Is the sourcecode type indicated in the XML? (See information about >>>> types: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types.) >>> >>> Yes, the ASN.1 compiles without errors. >>> >>> There is pseudocode in Section 3.4 of the document. >>> >>>> 7) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for editing in >>>> kramdown-rfc? >>>> If so, please let us know and provide a self-contained kramdown-rfc file. >>>> For more >>>> information about this experiment, see: >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc. >>> >>> We used kramdown-rfc, and we will gladly participate in the experiment. >>> >>>> 8) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for completing >>>> AUTH48 in >>>> GitHub? If so, please let us know and provide all author, AD, and/or >>>> document >>>> shepherd GitHub usernames. For more information about this experiment, see: >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=rpc-github-phase-0-pilot-test. >>> >>> We are willing. >>> >>>> 9) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing >>>> this >>>> document? >>> >>> No. >>> >>> Russ -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
