Hi Oliver, Thank you for asking for clarification.
There are still sourcecode elements in Sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 that are marked sourcecode type="csv", and there is a sourcecode element in Section 6 that doesn't have a specified type. While it's totally fine to not always specify the type, the type "csv" is not currently in our list of sourcecode types: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types If "csv" is the correct type, please let us know so we can add it to our list. Also, please let us know if there is a preferred type for the sourcecode in Section 6. Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Jan 8, 2026, at 9:02 AM, Oliver Gasser <[email protected]> wrote: > > @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]
