Hi Young, Based on the current processing time, it looks like draft-lim-apv-09 would enter AUTH48 in January, after the holiday season.
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Oct 22, 2025, at 8:32 AM, Youngkwon Lim <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thank you for the confirmation. BTW, do you have any time frame expected > about AUTH48 in this case you can guess? Just in case, as we are approaching > holiday season. > > Sincerely, > Young. > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2025, 07:49 Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> > wrote: > Hi Young, > > Thank you for your reply. We will reach out if we need further clarification > on anything during the editing process. > > Sincerely, > Sarah Tarrant > RFC Production Center > > > On Oct 21, 2025, at 7:43 PM, Youngkwon Lim <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Dear the RPC Team, > > > > We are really excited that the draft has reached this step and ready for > > production. > > > > We have reviewed the questions in your email and can confirm that no > > updates are required and there are no special request to make. You can > > process the 09 version of the draft as it is. > > > > We are really grateful to the shepherd who has reviewed the draft many > > times thoroughly and provide us many good comments. We will be happy to > > work with you to move forward this draft to the final publication. Please > > feel free to reach out to us if there are any questions or request to us. > > Thank you! > > > > Sincerely, > > Young > > > > > > > > ------ Original Message ------ > > From "Sarah Tarrant" <[email protected]> > > To [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected] > > Cc [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected] > > Date 10/21/2025 4:42:46 PM > > Subject Document intake questions about <draft-lim-apv-09> > > > >> 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) 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 4:39 PM, [email protected] wrote: > >>> Author(s), > >>> Your document draft-lim-apv-09, 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]
