Hi Oliver and Russ, Thank you for your replies.
Oliver - Since Russ recommended that the sourcecode in Section 6 should not be marked with a type, do you agree? Once I know that, I can move the draft from AUTH to EDIT and continue processing it as normal. Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Jan 12, 2026, at 7:08 AM, Oliver Gasser <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > Given Russ's response below, are there any other open points you need > answered (I see the document is stil in AUTH state)? > > Cheers, > > Oliver > > On 1/8/26 6:35 PM, Russ Housley wrote: >> Oliver: >> Section 6 contains an incomplete example. I do not think it should be >> mareked with a sourcecode type. >> Russ >>> On Jan 8, 2026, at 10:32 AM, Oliver Gasser <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Sarah, >>> >>> On 1/8/26 4:16 PM, Sarah Tarrant wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> Yes, "csv" is the correct type. >>> >>> @Russ: Should there be a specific type for the source code in Section 6 >>> (the RPKI signature example)? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Oliver >>> >>>> 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]
