Hi Alex, Thank you for your reply.
Regarding the markdown and the AUTH48/GitHub processing, for the sake of simplicity, let's just process this draft as normal (XML and email). There will be future opportunities for you to utilize the former processing. Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Jan 13, 2026, at 2:53 PM, Brotman, Alex > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Inline below. Let me know if there are questions or concerns. > > -- > Alex Brotman > Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy > Comcast > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, January 9, 2026 4:09 PM > To: Brotman, Alex <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Document intake questions about > <draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting-32> > > 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, both should still be accurate. > > > 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.) > > I don't believe so. This document is part of a set of three, but not beyond > that. > > > 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!AumAV4LUz7Feeu8vJbOTa_xszlbUnZBuglnw0AycOF1Tyajc0dmxDsaeK9UwhY2U-OFDDvvMFNsJKbzzY2DmAhamNQx4$ > >. You can also help the > IETF Tools Team by testing idnits3 > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits3/__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!AumAV4LUz7Feeu8vJbOTa_xszlbUnZBuglnw0AycOF1Tyajc0dmxDsaeK9UwhY2U-OFDDvvMFNsJKbzzY2DmAomsX2RA$ > > > with your document and reporting any issues to them. > > The only ones I'm not sure about are the W3C documents, though I can't > imagine they've been updated in the past year. > > > 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? > > The text around the contents of the reports went back and forth, however, > certainly open to suggestions. > > 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this > document? > > > 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 **) > > They should be noted correctly. > > 7) This document contains sourcecode: > > * 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!AumAV4LUz7Feeu8vJbOTa_xszlbUnZBuglnw0AycOF1Tyajc0dmxDsaeK9UwhY2U-OFDDvvMFNsJKbzzY2DmAuY_PmaB$ > .) > * Note that type "xsd" appears in the document but is not in our list. Please > review. > > It doesn't contain programming source code, but does have XML. The XSD is > inline, Appendix A. > > > 8) This document is part of Cluster 539: > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C539__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!AumAV4LUz7Feeu8vJbOTa_xszlbUnZBuglnw0AycOF1Tyajc0dmxDsaeK9UwhY2U-OFDDvvMFNsJKbzzY2DmAk7SmDf4$ > > > * 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/clusters/__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!AumAV4LUz7Feeu8vJbOTa_xszlbUnZBuglnw0AycOF1Tyajc0dmxDsaeK9UwhY2U-OFDDvvMFNsJKbzzY2DmAjCJzUmS$ > * For a list of all current clusters, see: > https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.rfc-editor.org/all_clusters.php__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!AumAV4LUz7Feeu8vJbOTa_xszlbUnZBuglnw0AycOF1Tyajc0dmxDsaeK9UwhY2U-OFDDvvMFNsJKbzzY2DmAomAD5I3$ > > The "dmarcbis" is the core document. > > To the best of my recollection, we tried to remove duplicative information as > best we could. > > 9) Because this document obsoletes RFC 7489, please review > the reported errata and confirm whether they have been addressed in this > document or are not relevant: > > * RFC 7489 > (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc7489__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!AumAV4LUz7Feeu8vJbOTa_xszlbUnZBuglnw0AycOF1Tyajc0dmxDsaeK9UwhY2U-OFDDvvMFNsJKbzzY2DmAi9dSevq$ > ) > > For the errata that apply to this portion of the set, they should all be > addressed. > > 10) 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!AumAV4LUz7Feeu8vJbOTa_xszlbUnZBuglnw0AycOF1Tyajc0dmxDsaeK9UwhY2U-OFDDvvMFNsJKbzzY2DmAjIlXjJj$ > . > > I used mmark/xml2rfc to generate these documents from markdown. I'm not sure > of the differences, but I wish I'd know this was an option while we were > working on the drafts. > > > 11) 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=rpc-github-phase-0-pilot-test__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!AumAV4LUz7Feeu8vJbOTa_xszlbUnZBuglnw0AycOF1Tyajc0dmxDsaeK9UwhY2U-OFDDvvMFNsJKbzzY2DmAjWmgee2$ > . > > Again, I wish I had known about this earlier. I have another document coming > soon that I could offer to work on using the kramdown/auth48 if folks would > like. It's likely destined for the MAILMAINT group, and is a similar > reporting document. I've already started with mmark/xml2rfc again, but I > could alter that if that's acceptable. -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
