yell at me if you need me to do it (and send me the .xml file). We are in the I-D cutoff time.
Deb On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 11:33 AM Phillip Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > I can make the changes. Just submit 15 as normal then? > > Phil > > > On Oct 23, 2025, at 7:13 AM, Sarah Tarrant < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Phil, > > > > You are correct about the <tt> tags not having any effect on the .txt > output. Perhaps using quotation marks in place of or in addition to the > <tt> tags would help with the .txt output? That would also affect the .html > and .pdf outputs, but then all outputs could be consistent. > > > > If you do decide to make these changes, we suggest submitting a new > version to the datatracker with those updates so that it is clear where > that change originated. > > > > Sincerely, > > Sarah Tarrant > > RFC Production Center > > > >> On Oct 21, 2025, at 5:07 PM, Phillip Hunt <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Sarah, > >> > >> Thanks for the note. > >> > >> The biggest issue will be consistent use of <tt> for code values. > >> > >> I was finding it was causing confusion in the .txt version as there is > no font change, bolding, or quotations. > >> > >> What is the current recommendation? I can revise based on usage > recommendations. > >> > >> As for errata, these are not part of the document and should be dealt > with separately. Sorry I have not gotten around to it. > >> > >> Phil > >> > >>>> On Oct 21, 2025, at 2:57 PM, Sarah Tarrant < > [email protected]> 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 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) Please review the entries in the References section carefully with > >>> the following in mind. Note that we will update as follows unless we > >>> hear otherwise at this time: > >>> > >>> * References to obsoleted RFCs will be updated to point to the current > >>> RFC on the topic in accordance with Section 4.8.6 of RFC 7322 > >>> (RFC Style Guide). > >>> > >>> * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be > >>> updated to point to the replacement I-D. > >>> > >>> * References to documents from other organizations that have been > >>> superseded will be updated to their superseding version. > >>> > >>> Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use > >>> idnits <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits>. You can also help the > >>> IETF Tools Team by testing idnits3 < > https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits3/> > >>> with your document and reporting any issues to them. > >>> > >>> > >>> 4) Is there any text that should be handled extra cautiously? For > example, are > >>> there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? > >>> > >>> > >>> 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while > editing this > >>> document? > >>> > >>> > >>> 6) 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 **) > >>> > >>> > >>> 7) This document contains sourcecode in Section 7.3: > >>> > >>> * 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? > >>> > >>> > >>> 8) This document contains SVG. What tool did you use to make the 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. > >>> > >>> > >>> 9) Because this document updates RFCs 7643 and 7644, please review > >>> the reported errata and confirm whether they have been addressed in > this > >>> document or are not relevant: > >>> > >>> * RFC 7643 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc7643) > >>> * RFC 7644 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc7644) > >>> > >>> > >>> 10) 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. > >>> > >>>> On Oct 21, 2025, at 4:50 PM, [email protected] wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Author(s), > >>>> > >>>> Your document draft-ietf-scim-events-14, 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]
