Hi Sarah, My answers are inline below, would like Jon to confirm he agrees, especially the corrections in the text in question 2 and 6.
@Jon please take a look. -Chris > On Nov 3, 2025, at 1:04 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 it is still accurate. > * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments > sections current? Could you update my email to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>? Otherwise correct. > > > 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). I think all of the references are accurate, other than being a bis document to update rfc4916 which is clearly described, I think it is good. > * 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.) I did a search and capitalization does look correct. I did find the following clarification that should be corrected: "the only difference is in semantics, as the certificate signs for the "dest" header field rather than the “orig” " Should be: "the only difference is in semantics, as the PASSporT is signed to authenticate the "dest” claim value rather than the “orig” “ This change doesn’t change the intended/implied meaning, just more accurately refers to “dest” as a PASSporT claim vs “header field” There is a second minor instance of this: "certificate in question is eligible to sign responses/requests for the number in the "dest" field of the "rsp" PASSporT.” Should be: "certificate in question is eligible to sign responses/requests for the number in the "dest" claim of the "rsp" PASSporT.” > > > 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. Looks good. > > > 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? No > > > 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this > document? No, this is pretty straight forward bis update. > > > 6) This document contains 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.) There is only JSON objects in the document, I double checked the format and looks accurate. I’m noticing one unrelated update: "https://www.example.com/cert.cer” Should be, based on newer guidance the industry is using, this is a very minor point: "https://www.example.com/cert.pem” > > > 7) 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. Not for this one. > >> On Nov 3, 2025, at 12:53 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> The document draft-ietf-stir-rfc4916-update-07 has >> changed from EDIT state to EDIT*A 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]
