Approved. Thank you for your work on this, everyone!

________________________________
From: Karen Moore <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2026 2:09:27 PM
To: Mike Bishop <[email protected]>; Martine Sophie Lenders 
<[email protected]>; Matthias Waehlisch 
<[email protected]>; [email protected] 
<[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] 
<[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; 
[email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] 
<[email protected]>
Subject: [AD] Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9952 
<draft-ietf-core-coap-dtls-alpn-05> for your review

Dear Martine, Thomas, Matthias, Christian, and *Mike (AD),

Thank you for your replies.  We have noted all of your approvals on the AUTH48 
status page (https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9952).  Once Mike approves 
the beyond editorial changes, we will contact you regarding approving the 
format of the document.

*Mike, as AD, please review the text added to the Acknowledgements section and 
let us know if you approve. The change can be viewed here: 
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9953-auth48diff.html>.


—Files (please refresh)—

For details of the AUTH48 process in kramdown-rfc (including the two-part 
approval process), see 
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc.

Updated MD file:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9952.md

Updated output files:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9952.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9952.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9952.txt

Diff files of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9952-diff.html (all changes)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9952-rfcdiff.html (all changes side by 
side)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9952-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9952-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 changes 
side by side)

Diff files of the kramdown:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9952-md-diff.html (all changes)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9952-md-rfcdiff.html (all changes side by 
side)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9952-md-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9952-md-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 
changes side by side)

Best regards,

Karen Moore
RFC Production Center

> On Mar 17, 2026, at 10:55 PM, Martine Sophie Lenders 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Karen and team,
>
> thanks for processing this.
>
> The current version looks good to. I approve of the publication.
>
> Best
> Martine
>
> On 3/17/26 22:21, Karen Moore wrote:
>> Hi Martine,
>> Thank you for your reply.  We have updated our files accordingly. Note that 
>> we marked “CoAP” as well known on the Abbreviations List 
>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=abbrev_list> and removed 
>> the expansion from the title. Please review and let us know if any further 
>> changes are needed or if you approve the document in its current form.
>> Note that we will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward 
>> with formatting updates.
>> —Files—
>> Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the 
>> most recent version. Please review the contents of the document carefully as 
>> we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC.
>> For details of the AUTH48 process in kramdown-rfc (including the two-part 
>> approval process), see 
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc.
>> Updated MD file:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9952.md
>> Updated output files:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9952.html
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9952.pdf
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9952.txt
>> Diff files of the text:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9952-diff.html (all changes)
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9952-rfcdiff.html (all changes side by 
>> side)
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9952-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes)
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9952-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 
>> changes side by side)
>> Diff files of the kramdown:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9952-md-diff.html (all changes)
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9952-md-rfcdiff.html (all changes side 
>> by side)
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9952-md-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 
>> changes)
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9952-md-auth48rfcdiff.html (AUTH48 
>> changes side by side)
>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9952
>> Best regards,
>> Karen Moore
>> RFC Production Center
>>> On Mar 16, 2026, at 4:25 PM, Martine Sophie Lenders via auth48archive 
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear RFC editor team,
>>>
>>> sorry for the late reply. Find our answers and additional requests inline.
>>>
>>> On 3/6/26 04:05, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> Authors,
>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) 
>>>> the following questions, which are also in the source file.
>>>> 1) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We updated [I-D.ietf-core-dns-over-coap] to 
>>>> [PRE-RFC9953]
>>>> for now. We will make the final updates in RFCXML (i.e., remove "PRE-").
>>>> -->
>>>
>>> ACK.
>>>
>>>> 2) <!--[rfced] Author Names
>>>> a) Thomas, we note "T. C. Schmidt" in the document header; however, the
>>>> majority of past RFCs have used "T. Schmidt". Which form do you prefer?
>>>
>>> From Thomas offline: I prefer "T. C. Schmidt".
>>>
>>>> b) Martine, please confirm if you prefer "M. S. Lenders" or "M. Lenders"
>>>> in the document header.
>>>> Note that we will apply your responses to both this document and
>>>> RFC-to-be 9953.
>>>> -->
>>>
>>> Yes, I prefer "M. S. Lenders". Please also make sure, that my initials are 
>>> spelled out as "M. S. Lenders" in the "[DoC-paper]" reference of RFC-to-be 
>>> 9953. As far as I can tell, this is already the case for IETF-internal 
>>> references, but please check also in the other references.
>>>
>>>> 3) <!--[rfced] Document Title
>>>> a) Please note that the document title has been updated as follows.
>>>> Abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style
>>>> Guide").
>>>> In addition, is "Specification" essential to the title or may it be removed
>>>> for conciseness?
>>>> Original (document title):
>>>>    ALPN ID Specification for CoAP over DTLS
>>>> Current:
>>>>    The Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) ID Specification for
>>>>    the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) over DTLS
>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>    Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) ID for
>>>>    the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) over DTLS
>>>
>>> Please consider CoAP for inclusion in the list of abbreviations that are 
>>> well-known (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=abbrev_list). 
>>> There have been over 20 RFCs in which it has been expanded, exceeding (for 
>>> example) the number of published documents on the well-known 6LoWPAN. For 
>>> people only tangentially familiar with the topic (say, someone coming from 
>>> competing technologies), chances are they are even *more* familiar with the 
>>> acronym than the expansion.
>>>
>>> This document would be a particularly good starting point for treating it 
>>> as well-known because the document is of no use to anyone who is not 
>>> already familiar with CoAP. Our preferred title would be
>>>
>>>  Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) ID for CoAP over DTLS
>>>
>>> If that is really no option, we like the second proposal better.
>>>
>>>  Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) ID for the Constrained
>>>  Application Protocol (CoAP) over DTLS
>>>
>>> See also 
>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/jNx8TbolOmUX39l-Hgq2BRNmuV4/
>>>
>>>> b) For the short title that spans the header of the PDF file, should "CoRE
>>>> ALPN" be updated to "ALPN ID for CoAP over DTLS" to more closely match the
>>>> document title?
>>>> Original (short title):
>>>>    CoRE ALPN
>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>    ALPN ID for CoAP over DTLS
>>>> -->
>>>
>>> ACK.
>>>
>>>> 4) <!-- [rfced] Abstract: Should the abstract mention DTLS?
>>>> Original:
>>>>    This document specifies an Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation
>>>>    (ALPN) ID for transport-layer-secured Constrained Application
>>>>    Protocol (CoAP) services.
>>>> Perhaps (similar to text in the Introduction):
>>>>    This document specifies an Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation
>>>>    (ALPN) ID for Constrained Application
>>>>    Protocol (CoAP) services that are secured by DTLS.
>>>> -->
>>>
>>> ACK.
>>>
>>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] Introduction: We updated "by transport layer security 
>>>> using DTLS"
>>>> to "by TLS using DTLS" here. Would further updating as shown below improve
>>>> this sentence?
>>>> Original:
>>>>    This document
>>>>    specifies an ALPN ID for CoAP services that are secured by transport
>>>>    layer security using DTLS.
>>>> Current:
>>>>    This document
>>>>    specifies an ALPN ID for CoAP services that are secured by TLS
>>>>    using DTLS.
>>>> Perhaps:
>>>>    This document
>>>>    specifies an ALPN ID for CoAP services that are secured
>>>>    by DTLS.
>>>> -->
>>>
>>> Please use the "Perhaps" version since the text in the "Current" version is 
>>> technically incorrect.
>>>
>>>> 6) <!--[rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the 
>>>> online Style
>>>> Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> and
>>>> let us know if any changes are needed.  Updates of this nature typically
>>>> result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers.
>>>> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should
>>>> still be reviewed as a best practice.
>>>> -->
>>>
>>> Thanks! To the best of our abilities, we did not find any potentially 
>>> remaining non-inclusive wordings in the document.
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------
>>>
>>> ## Additional Requests
>>>
>>> Please append the following sentence to the acknowledgements:
>>>
>>>> This work was supported in parts by the German Federal Ministry of 
>>>> Research, Technology, and Space (BMFTR) under the grant numbers 16KIS1386K 
>>>> (TU Dresden) and 16KIS1387 (HAW Hamburg) within the research project PIVOT 
>>>> and under the grant numbers 16KIS1694K (TU Dresden) and 16KIS1695 (HAW 
>>>> Hamburg) within the research project C-ray4edge.
>>>
>>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>> Thank you!
>>> Martine
>>>
>>>> Karen Moore and Rebecca VanRheenen
>>>> RFC Production Center
>>>> On Mar 5, 2026, at 6:59 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>>> Updated 2026/03/05
>>>> RFC Author(s):
>>>> --------------
>>>> Your document has now entered AUTH48.
>>>> The document was edited in kramdown-rfc as part of the RPC pilot test (see
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc)
-- 
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to