Hi Mike, Thank you for your review. We have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page (https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9952).
Authors, now that we have received all necessary approvals of the content, we will be proceeding with Part 2 of AUTH48; we will contact you shortly regarding the format of the XML and output files. Best regards, Karen Moore RFC Production Center > On Mar 18, 2026, at 1:43 PM, Mike Bishop <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]
