Dear RFC Editor Team,
thank you for adding our document to the queue.
We fixed some nits and published version -17.
Please see our replies inline below.
Best
Stavros
On 1/6/26 23:22, Sarah Tarrant wrote:
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?
Yes
* 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).
Our documents terminology should match post-quantum hybrid schemes
terminology in RFC9794 (as it is stated in Section 1.1.1 of our document).
* 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 wrapped functions, parameters, variables, equations, and assignments
in single backticks to format them as code.
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.
After fixing some minor nits idnits gives us:
=============================================================
idnits 2.17.1
draft-ietf-openpgp-pqc-17.txt:
Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according tohttps://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according tohttps://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'FIPS-203'
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'FIPS-204'
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'FIPS-205'
-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IANA-OPENPGP'
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3394
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 7748
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 8032
Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 4 comments (--).
Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
the items above.
===========================================================================================
We listed those references as normative as they contain the algorithmic
specifications needed.
We would appreciate guidance from the RFC Editor Team if this should be
handled differently.
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 **)
As far as we know, yes.
7) This document contains sourcecode:
* Does the sourcecode validate?
Yes
* 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.)
Yes
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. For
more
information about this experiment, see:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc.
No
9) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for completing AUTH48 in
GitHub? If so, please let us know. For more information about this experiment,
see:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=rpc-github-phase-0-pilot-test.
No
On Jan 6, 2026, at 4:17 PM,[email protected] wrote:
Author(s),
Your document draft-ietf-openpgp-pqc-16, 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
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
