Hi everyone, Everything looks good to me too. Thanks, Shay Gueron On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 1:12 AM Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer) <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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]
