Hello all, I've updated our files to version -15.
We are still awaiting answers to the intake form -- so I've pasted them here for ease of access. Thank you, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center ------ 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 * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be updated to point to the replacement I-D. * References to documents from other organizations that have been superseded will be updated to their superseding version. Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use idnits 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 23, 2025, at 11:05 AM, Deb Cooley <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]
