Hi Stavros, Thank you for your reply!
As for the question about idnits flags about the references, we'll take a closer look as we process them. I doubt that those suggestions are necessary. Once I get AD approval for the email address updates, it should be all set. Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Jan 13, 2026, at 4:25 AM, Kousidis <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > No issues found here. > > Checking nits according to https://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]
