Hi again, 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. Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Oct 3, 2025, at 11:13 AM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Henk, > > Thank you for your detailed reply. We will incorporate these requests during > the editing process. > > Regarding "first batch of replies", are you expecting the other authors to > send responses to the intake form as well? If so, I can keep an eye out for > those. > > Sincerely, > Sarah Tarrant > RFC Production Center > >> On Oct 2, 2025, at 8:43 AM, Henk Birkholz <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Sarah, >> >> thanks! We'll try to help you and RPC team as best as we can. >> >> Please find a first batch of replies below in-line. >> >> >> Viele Grüße, >> >> Henk >> >> On 01.10.25 23:25, Sarah Tarrant wrote: >>> 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 still accurate? >>> * Are the References, Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments >>> sections current? >> >> The text in the Abstract is still accurate, the References, Author's >> Addresses, Contributors and Acknowledgments sections are current - with one >> exception. >> >> Henk Birkholz: >> >> [email protected] -> [email protected] >> >>> 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.) >> >> The document terminology relies on and needs to be consistent with RFC9052 >> and RFC9053. >> Domain-specific terms defined in the Terminology Section and capitalized. >> Other aspects of the document follow conventions established in RFC9052 and >> RFC5093. >> >>> 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? >> >> No >> >>> 4) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this >>> document? >> >> Not that we are aware of, currently. >> >>> 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 **) >> >> Yes, they are (because we barely use them, too.) >> >>> 6) This document contains sourcecode: >>> * Does the sourcecode validate? >>> * Some sourcecode types (e.g., YANG) require certain references and/or text >>> in the Security Considerations section. Is this information correct? >>> * Is the sourcecode type indicated in the XML? (See information about >>> sourcecode types.) >> >> Yes, the "source code" is either EDN (automatically generated) or CDDL >> (validates). The types are indicated in kramdown which should transfer to >> XML indication well. >> >>> 7) 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. >> >> The ASCII displays correctly, and so does the SVG in the rendered PDF. >> >>> 8) This document is part of Cluster 557. >>> * 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)? >> >> There are no ordering constraints. >> >>>> On Oct 1, 2025, at 4:21 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>> Author(s), >>>> >>>> Your document draft-ietf-scitt-architecture-21, which has been approved >>>> for publication as >>>> an RFC, has been added to the RFC Editor queue >>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php>. >>>> >>>> If your XML file was submitted using the I-D submission tool >>>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/>, 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://www.rfc-editor.org/pubprocess/how-we-update/>. >>>> Next, we will edit for clarity and apply the style guide >>>> (<https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/>). >>>> >>>> You can check the status of your document at >>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php>. >>>> >>>> You will receive automatic notifications as your document changes >>>> queue state (for more information about these states, please see >>>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/queue/>). 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 >>>> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
