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
