Nimrod, I stand corrected ;)
spt > On Jan 8, 2026, at 15:32, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Nimrod, > > Thank you for your reply. Regarding the typos that you mentioned, could you > submit a new version to the datatracker so that it is clear where those > changes originated? > > The markdown file you attached works perfectly, so once you submit the new > version to datatracker, could you also respond to this thread with the > updated markdown? > > Sincerely, > Sarah Tarrant > RFC Production Center > >> On Jan 8, 2026, at 10:20 AM, Nimrod Aviram <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Sarah and RPC Team, thanks for your work! >> >> Please see my answers inline. >> >> best wishes, >> Nimrod >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> >> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2026 at 00:50 >> Subject: Document intake questions about >> <draft-ietf-tls-deprecate-obsolete-kex-07> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Cc: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, >> <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, >> <[email protected]> >> >> >> 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? >> We reviewed the current version. >> The Abstract is accurate and the Authors’ Addresses / Acknowledgments are >> current. >> We did notice a few minor typos in the Abstract; we are happy to address >> these during AUTH48. >> (We also have a PR to the document repo reflecting the required edits: >> https://github.com/tlswg/draft-deprecate-obsolete-kex/pull/27 >> >> 2) Please share any style information that could help us with editing your >> document. >> No specific guidance, thanks. >> >> 3) Please review the entries in the References section carefully with >> the following in mind. >> Done, thanks. >> >> 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? >> None, thanks. >> >> 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this >> document? >> No, thanks. >> >> 6) This document is part of Cluster 430: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C430 >> >> * 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. >> No, this document is stand-alone. >> >> 7) Because this document updates RFCs 4162, 4279, 4346, 4785, 5246, 5288, >> 5289, >> 5469, 5487, 5932, 6209, 6347, 6367, 6655, 7905, 8422, and 9325, please >> review >> the reported errata and confirm whether they have been addressed in this >> document or are not relevant: >> >> * RFC 4346 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc4346) >> * RFC 5246 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc5246) >> * RFC 5288 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc5288) >> * RFC 6347 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc6347) >> * RFC 6367 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc6367) >> * RFC 6655 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc6655) >> * RFC 7905 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc7905) >> * RFC 8422 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc8422) >> >> All are not relevant, thanks. >> >> >> 8) 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. >> Yes, please find attached. >> >> 9) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for completing AUTH48 >> in >> GitHub? >> Yes, thanks. >> >> >>> On Jan 6, 2026, at 4:35 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> Author(s), >>> >>> Your document draft-ietf-tls-deprecate-obsolete-kex-07, which has been >>> approved for publication as >>> an RFC, has been added to the RFC Editor queue >>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php>. >>> >>> If your XML file was submitted using the I-D submission tool >>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/>, we have already retrieved it >>> and have started working on it. >>> >>> If you did not submit the file via the I-D submission tool, or >>> if you have an updated version (e.g., updated contact information), >>> please send us the file at this time by attaching it >>> in your reply to this message and specifying any differences >>> between the approved I-D and the file that you are providing. >>> >>> You will receive a separate message from us asking for style input. >>> Please respond to that message. When we have received your response, >>> your document will then move through the queue. The first step that >>> we take as your document moves through the queue is converting it to >>> RFCXML (if it is not already in RFCXML) and applying the formatting >>> steps listed at <https://www.rfc-editor.org/pubprocess/how-we-update/>. >>> Next, we will edit for clarity and apply the style guide >>> (<https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/>). >>> >>> You can check the status of your document at >>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php>. >>> >>> You will receive automatic notifications as your document changes >>> queue state (for more information about these states, please see >>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/queue/>). When we have completed >>> our edits, we will move your document to AUTH48 state and ask you >>> to perform a final review of the document. >>> >>> Please let us know if you have any questions. >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> The RFC Editor Team >>> >> >> <draft-ietf-tls-deprecate-obsolete-kex.md> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
