Re: [C430] AUTH48 [LB]: RFC 8999 <draft-ietf-quic-invariants-13.txt> NOW AVAILABLE

["Martin Thomson" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Lynne,

I've reviewed this document and approve of its publication.

On Wed, May 19, 2021, at 09:53, Lynne Bartholomew wrote:
> Hi, Martin.
> 
> Regarding RFC 9001:  we had
> 
>    [QUIC-TLS] Thomson, M., Ed. and S. Turner, Ed., "Using Transport
>               Layer Security (TLS) to Secure QUIC", RFC 9001,
>               DOI 10.17487/RFC9001, May 2021,
>               <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9001>.
> 
> We have updated the title to match RFC 9001.
> 
> We have also updated the RFC URLs.
> 
> The latest files are posted here:
> 
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc8999.txt
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc8999.pdf
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc8999.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc8999.xml
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc8999-diff.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc8999-rfcdiff.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc8999-auth48diff.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc8999-lastdiff.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc8999-lastrfcdiff.html
> 
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc8999-xmldiff1.html
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc8999-xmldiff2.html
> 
> We will update the URLs in RFC 9000 shortly.
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> RFC Editor/lb
> 
> 
> > On May 18, 2021, at 3:52 PM, Martin Thomson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, May 19, 2021, at 03:22, Lynne Bartholomew wrote:
> >> * We see that the IANA Considerations section was removed.  We suggest 
> >> restoring it, per guidance in Section 9.1 of RFC 8126 
> >> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126).
> > 
> > I have read that request, but am not convinced that there is enough justification to include the extra text.
> > 
> >> * We see that the title of RFC 9001 as listed in the References section 
> >> was changed in this document.  This introduces a title mismatch.  Would 
> >> you like to revert this change, as was done in the References section 
> >> in RFC 9000?
> > 
> > Oh, I thought that I had fixed the inconsistency.  This is what the source shows:
> > 
> > rfc8999.xml:            <title>Using TLS to Secure QUIC</title>
> > rfc9000.xml:            <title>Using TLS to Secure QUIC</title>
> > rfc9001.xml:    <title>Using TLS to Secure QUIC</title>
> > rfc9002.xml:            <title>Using TLS to Secure QUIC</title>
> > 
> > Do you have something else?
> > 
> >> * Not a major point, but we suggest restoring the comma after 
> >> "[QUIC-TLS]" here, per our style guidelines for compound sentences:
> >> 
> >>    * QUIC uses TLS [QUIC-TLS] and some TLS messages are visible on the 
> >>      wire.
> > 
> > Sure.
> > 
> >> PS  Would you like us to update the RFC URLs (by explicitly setting "target" URLs in the XML file) in RFCs 8999 and 9000, per the latest RFC Editor updates to RFCs 9001 and 9002?
> > 
> > That would be fine for all documents.  Best to be consistent.  FWIW, I've been using the xml2rfc --rfc-base-url flag to set to something else (for me at least, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/ provides a better user experience).
> > 
> 
>