Hello authors, We have converted the kramdown-rfc file to RFCXML. Note that there is a placeholder for RFC-to-be 9953 since it will move forward in the publication process with this document once it has completed AUTH48.
Please review the XML file and its TXT, HTML, and PDF outputs, and let us know if any changes are required or if you approve the RFC for publication. While this is your approval of the XML and its outputs, we consider this your final assent that the document is ready for publication. To request changes or approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. Note that we will only make changes in the XML file from this point on. XML file: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9952.xml 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 Lastdiff of the text (shows only the format changes): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9952-lastdiff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9952-rfclastdiff.html (side by side) Comprehensive diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9952-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9952-rfcdiff.html (side by side) For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9952 Thank you, Karen Moore RFC Production Center > On Mar 19, 2026, at 5:51 PM, Karen Moore <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]
