Everything looks good to me. Of course, I cannot speak for the other coauthors.
________________________________ From: Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2025 5:53 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer) <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; auth48archive <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Document intake questions about <draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design-16>: Round 2 Hi Author(s), This is a friendly reminder that we await answers to the questions below before continuing with the editing process for this document. Thank you, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Nov 5, 2025, at 11:18 AM, 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 is still accurate? > * Are the References, 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) Is there any text that should be handled extra cautiously? For example, are > there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? > > > 4) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this > document? > > > 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 **) > > > 6) This document contains artwork that might be sourcecode: > > * Please identify which (if any) artwork elements are 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). > > > 7) This document is part of Cluster 553. > > * 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. > >> On Nov 5, 2025, at 12:05 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> The document draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design-16 has >> changed from EDIT state to AUTH state. We thought you'd like to know. >> You can also follow your document's state at >> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php>. >> For definitions of state names, please see >> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/queue/#state_def>. >> >> If you have questions, please send mail to [email protected]. >> >> Best regards, >> The RFC Editor Team >> >> >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
