Hi Nimrod, Thanks for the heads-up! I'm working on getting AD approval and should be able to move this from AUTH to EDIT soon.
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Jan 12, 2026, at 12:13 PM, Nimrod Aviram <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > Sure thing, uploaded version 08. > Please find attached. > > thanks, best wishes, > Nimrod > > > On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 at 22:32, 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> > > <draft-ietf-tls-deprecate-obsolete-kex(1).md> -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
