Hi Henk, What are the time constraints for this draft? It would be helpful for us to know so that we can plan accordingly.
Thank you, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Oct 7, 2025, at 9:24 AM, Henk Birkholz <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > we are entirely sure what the consequences of participating in the test are. > We are under relatively strong time constraints, which means if you need > multiple feedback iterations (e.g., we do imports from multiple files via the > kramdown-rfc) maybe we are not the best candidate. > > If everything can be done in one go, we are happy to help! > > > Viele Grüße, > > Henk > > On 03.10.25 21:43, Sarah Tarrant wrote: >> 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]
