Hi Todd, Thank you for your reply!
Just to make sure I didn't miss anything, are your two emails identical -- excluding the top paragraph requesting feedback from your coauthors? Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Jan 13, 2026, at 9:16 AM, Todd Herr > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Answers inline... > > On Fri, Jan 9, 2026 at 4:17 PM <[email protected]> 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? > * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments > sections current? > > > The text of the Abstract is still accurate, and the Authors' Addresses, > Contributors, and Acknowledgments sections are current. > > 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). > * 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.) > > > This document's formatting and terminology should be consistent with > I-D.draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting and > I-D.draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting, and in fact this document should be > the reference document for formatting and terminology for this set of three > documents. > > > 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. > > > The References section has been reviewed and no issues are found. > 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? > > > Section 7.4 was likely the most contentious section, and so should be handled > extra cautiously. > > 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this > document? > > > There are two embarrassing spelling errors/typos ("reportging" and > "Alignmeent") in section 8. The authors apologize for these errors. > > 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 **) > > The elements are used consistently. > > > 7) This document is part of Cluster 539: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C539 > > * 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. > * Is there any text that has been repeated within the cluster document that > should be edited in the same way (for instance, parallel introductory text or > Security Considerations)? > * For more information about clusters, see > https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/clusters/ > * For a list of all current clusters, see: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/all_clusters.php > > > This document should be read first among the three documents in C539. > > As for the other two, while the order of reading them is not important, DMARC > Aggregate Reporting is much more widely implemented than DMARC Failure > Reporting, and so it makes sense to place > I-D.draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting before > I-D.draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting, > > 8) Because this document obsoletes RFCs 7489 and 9091, please review > the reported errata and confirm whether they have been addressed in this > document or are not relevant: > > * RFC 7489 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc7489) > > > Section C.9 discusses all RFC 7489 Errata. > > 9) 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. > 10) 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. > > > Yes > > > > -- > Todd -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
