@Sarah: Does Russ's response answer your remaining questions? I don't
think we have any other source code in the document.
Cheers,
Oliver
On 1/7/26 6:54 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
Sarah:
I compiled the ASN.1 module with no errors.
Russ
On Jan 7, 2026, at 12:41 PM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi Oliver,
My apologies for not including this in the intake form, but I have some
additional questions about the sourcecode in the XML file:
* 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 types:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types.) Note that
one sourcecode element in the XML does not have a specified type.
* Regarding the sourcecode types, "csv" is not included in the list of
acceptable types. Are you requesting that we ask for it to be added to the list?
Thank you,
Sarah Tarrant
RFC Production Center
On Jan 7, 2026, at 8:21 AM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Oliver,
Thank you for your reply!
Sincerely,
Sarah Tarrant
RFC Production Center
On Jan 7, 2026, at 5:51 AM, Oliver Gasser <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Sarah, all,
Sorry for the delay, I'm back from my time off now. Responses to questions are
inline.
Cheers,
Oliver
On 12/22/25 6:10 PM, Sarah Tarrant wrote:
Hi Randy,
Sending in response to your question:
hmmm. both russ and i said ok to the iana reg change.
so could you whack me with a clue bat with exactly what you await?
We are looking out for the authors' responses to the Intake Form, included here:
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?
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).
This document is related to RFC8805 and RFC9632.
* 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 write the term "prefixlen" in all lower case throughout the document, with the exception of the
"Prefixlen" keyword as part of the "remarks:" field.
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?
No.
5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this
document?
No.
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 **)
Yes, I hope so.
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.
No.
Sincerely,
Sarah Tarrant
RFC Production Center
On Dec 18, 2025, at 11:37 AM, Randy Bush <[email protected]> wrote:
mornin'sarah,
Now we just need answers to the Intake Form before proceeding with
this draft.
i am leaving that to the primary author, oliver. i just stuck my nose
in to smooth a process gl!tch.
randy
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
