Hello RPC Team! We feel that no further edits are needed.
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 is still accurate? * Are the References, Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments sections current? [Author’s Response] Abstract looks good. Author’s addresses look ok to me. About the references: I notice that up until the most recent version (-14) we only had Informative references, which made sense to me for an Informational document, but we have split it into Normative and Informative. I’m not sure which of the authors made that change, but I would personally appreciate the RPC’s input on whether that’s the right thing to do for an Informational doc. 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? If so, please provide a pointer to that document (e.g., this document's terminology should match DNS terminology in RFC 9499). * Is there a pattern of capitalization or formatting of terms? (e.g., field names should have initial capitalization; parameter names should be in double quotes; <tt/> should be used for token names; etc.) [Author’s Response] This document is Informational. Its primary purpose is to demystify the terminology around Post-Quantum Cryptography, and to provide the IETF’s stance on some of the more controversial points. That said, it reads a bit like a survey paper, and it has an extensive references list that will use the same terms, but often in conflicting ways, which is sortof the reason this document exists. To that extent, I think the RPC has some freedom to adjust terms, capitalization, etc, since this document is establishing how the IETF should use these terms and concepts. [Author’s Response] In terms of writing style, these reviews by Hilarie Orman and Mališa Vučinić, I think, give a fair critique that the document feels “jumpy”, like it was written by multiple authors at multiple times (which it was!), it sometimes uses terms before defining them, and the scope and audience are not clear. We would greatly accept help from a fresh pair of eyes to clean this up! https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-pquip-pqc-engineers-12-secdir-lc-orman-2025-06-09/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-pquip-pqc-engineers-13-iotdir-telechat-vucinic-2025-07-23/ 3) Is there any text that should be handled extra cautiously? For example, are there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? [Authors Response] I mean, yes, but that’s sortof the nature of this beast: we’re trying to cut through a load of conflicting opinions and conflicting usages of the same terminology. I think that changes for clarity will be fine, but if you shift the meaning or nuance of the terminology, then the authors should review that carefully. 4) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this document? [Authors Response] No. 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 **) [Author’s Response] Hmm. I don’t know. On a quick skim of the rendered HTML, I don’t see any formatting that’s particularly important. 6) This document contains SVG. The RPC cannot update SVG diagrams, so please ensure that: * the SVG figures match the ASCII art used in the text output as closely as possible, and * the figures fit on the pages of the PDF output. In the rendered HTML, the ASCII Art, Figures 1 - 5, look good. I’m not sure how to check the PDF? 7) This document is part of Cluster 549. * To help the reader understand the content of the cluster, is there a document in the cluster that should be read first? Next? If so, please provide the order and we will provide RFC numbers for the documents accordingly. If order is not important, please let us know. * Is there any text that has been repeated within the cluster document that should be edited in the same way? For instance, parallel introductory text or Security Considerations. [Author’s Response] This document does not really have much to do with draft-ietf-lamps-dilithium-certificates or draft-ietf-lamps-cms-ml-dsa, except that they are all PQC-related, which maybe helps the RPC to edit similar subject matter at the same time? 8) 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 [Author’s Response] Yes please! The markdown source is here, which, as far as I know, is self-contained (ie no file includes or special scripts needed.) https://github.com/tireddy2/pqc-for-engineers/blob/main/draft-ietf-pquip-pqc-engineers.md --- Mike Ounsworth ________________________________ From: Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2025 7:44 AM To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Mike Ounsworth <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Document intake questions about <draft-ietf-pquip-pqc-engineers-14> Author(s), Congratulations, your document has been successfully added to the RFC Editor queue! The team at the RFC Production Center (RPC) is looking forward to working with you as your document moves forward toward publication. To help reduce Author(s), Congratulations, your document has been successfully added to the RFC Editor queue! The team at the RFC Production Center (RPC) is looking forward to working with you as your document moves forward toward publication. To help reduce processing time and improve editing accuracy, please respond to the questions below. Please confer with your coauthors (or authors of other documents if your document is in a cluster) as necessary prior to taking action in order to streamline communication. If your document has multiple authors, only one author needs to reply to this message. As you read through the rest of this email: * If you need/want to make updates to your document, we encourage you to make those changes and resubmit to the Datatracker. This allows for the easy creation of diffs, which facilitates review by interested parties (e.g., authors, ADs, doc shepherds). * If you feel no updates to the document are necessary, please reply with any applicable rationale/comments. Please note that the RPC team will not work on your document until we hear from you (that is, your document will remain in AUTH state until we receive a reply). Even if you don't have guidance or don't feel that you need to make any updates to the document, you need to let us know. After we hear from you, your document will start moving through the queue. You will be able to review and approve our updates during AUTH48. Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have at [email protected]. Thank you! The RPC Team -- 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 is still accurate? * Are the References, Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments sections current? 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? If so, please provide a pointer to that document (e.g., this document's terminology should match DNS terminology in RFC 9499). * Is there a pattern of capitalization or formatting of terms? (e.g., field names should have initial capitalization; parameter names should be in double quotes; <tt/> should be used for token names; etc.) 3) Is there any text that should be handled extra cautiously? For example, are there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? 4) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this document? 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 **) 6) This document contains SVG. The RPC cannot update SVG diagrams, so please ensure that: * the SVG figures match the ASCII art used in the text output as closely as possible, and * the figures fit on the pages of the PDF output. 7) This document is part of Cluster 549. * To help the reader understand the content of the cluster, is there a document in the cluster that should be read first? Next? If so, please provide the order and we will provide RFC numbers for the documents accordingly. If order is not important, please let us know. * Is there any text that has been repeated within the cluster document that should be edited in the same way? For instance, parallel introductory text or Security Considerations. 8) 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!Zd9JhPxXJZvRlqmjZ7ZizmMXbmNUp0iCnCHkVDCpK9XDK2smR-XxxSwRti2ut0G2SG89s2IoRLyy0u7sMRXPs-afC4ly9Lc$. > On Sep 10, 2025, at 7:39 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Author(s), > > Your document draft-ietf-pquip-pqc-engineers-14, which has been approved for > publication as > an RFC, has been added to the RFC Editor queue > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!Zd9JhPxXJZvRlqmjZ7ZizmMXbmNUp0iCnCHkVDCpK9XDK2smR-XxxSwRti2ut0G2SG89s2IoRLyy0u7sMRXPs-afnd3FNek$>. > > If your XML file was submitted using the I-D submission tool > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!Zd9JhPxXJZvRlqmjZ7ZizmMXbmNUp0iCnCHkVDCpK9XDK2smR-XxxSwRti2ut0G2SG89s2IoRLyy0u7sMRXPs-afPabxEMo$>, > we have already retrieved it > and have started working on it. > > If you did not submit the file via the I-D submission tool, or > if you have an updated version (e.g., updated contact information), > please send us the file at this time by attaching it > in your reply to this message and specifying any differences > between the approved I-D and the file that you are providing. > > You will receive a separate message from us asking for style input. > Please respond to that message. When we have received your response, > your document will then move through the queue. The first step that > we take as your document moves through the queue is converting it to > RFCXML (if it is not already in RFCXML) and applying the formatting > steps listed at > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/pubprocess/how-we-update/__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!Zd9JhPxXJZvRlqmjZ7ZizmMXbmNUp0iCnCHkVDCpK9XDK2smR-XxxSwRti2ut0G2SG89s2IoRLyy0u7sMRXPs-afLJTFd9c$>. > Next, we will edit for clarity and apply the style guide > (<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!Zd9JhPxXJZvRlqmjZ7ZizmMXbmNUp0iCnCHkVDCpK9XDK2smR-XxxSwRti2ut0G2SG89s2IoRLyy0u7sMRXPs-afheHFuZM$>). > > You can check the status of your document at > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!Zd9JhPxXJZvRlqmjZ7ZizmMXbmNUp0iCnCHkVDCpK9XDK2smR-XxxSwRti2ut0G2SG89s2IoRLyy0u7sMRXPs-afnd3FNek$>. > > You will receive automatic notifications as your document changes > queue state (for more information about these states, please see > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/queue/__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!Zd9JhPxXJZvRlqmjZ7ZizmMXbmNUp0iCnCHkVDCpK9XDK2smR-XxxSwRti2ut0G2SG89s2IoRLyy0u7sMRXPs-af33tdrz8$>). > When we have completed > our edits, we will move your document to AUTH48 state and ask you > to perform a final review of the document. > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you. > > The RFC Editor Team > Any email and files/attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If this message has been sent to you in error, you must not copy, distribute or disclose of the information it contains. Please notify Entrust immediately and delete the message from your system.
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
