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* References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be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superseded will be updated to their superseding version.
Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use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
