Hi, We need to publish a new version that includes recent changes, unfortunately we can't do that so close to the plenary week.
Inline: On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 4:10 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? > Yes, although it is a bit wordy. > * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments > sections current? > Yes. > > > 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). > We have CBOR Extended Diagnostic Notation examples and JSON examples, here are the relevant RFCs & drafts: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7517 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8610#appendix-G https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cbor-edn-literals/ We also have CDDL in Section 4 based on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8610 > * 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.) > > We use `value` to highlight CBOR labels, and other example values in the text. > > 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? > > We have restated the "detached payload" language originating from https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8152#section-2 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8152#section-4.1 I think we may have lost some opportunities for clarity in our repetition. > > 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing > this > document? This document is really just new header parameters for cose sign 1 payloads that are the output of a hash function. > > > > 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 **) > We only use ` ... I suspect we might be better off using " for a few values instead of `, and reserve ` for highlighting code points and not examples. > > > 7) This document contains sourcecode: > > * Does the sourcecode validate? > Yes. > * 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.) > We did not manage the draft in xml, but the proper source code type for CDDL is: <sourcecode type="cddl" ... > > > 8) 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. > Yes please! > > > On Oct 28, 2025, at 4:05 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > Author(s), > > > > Your document draft-ietf-cose-hash-envelope-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]
