Thanks Deb, Sarah, let me know if you need anything else from me or my co-authors.
Cheers Pieter On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 1:47 PM Deb Cooley <[email protected]> wrote: > > I approve. Apologies for the delay. > > Deb > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 12:16 PM Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Hi Pieter, >> >> Thank you for your reply! >> >> Once we get Deb's approval, we'll move this to EDIT state. >> >> Sincerely, >> Sarah Tarrant >> RFC Production Center >> >> > On Mar 2, 2026, at 10:57 AM, Pieter Kasselman <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> > Thanks Sarah >> > >> > Please see responses inline. Let us know if you need additional >> > information or clarification. >> > >> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 10:25 PM Sarah Tarrant >> > <[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? >> > >> > Yes >> > >> >> * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments >> >> sections current? >> >> >> > >> > An update was made in the -16 draft to reflect my affiliation (full >> > company name). >> > >> >> >> >> 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 is produced in the OAuth working group and applies to >> > several OAuth RFCs and should reflect OAuth terminology and >> > specifically applies to RFC8628 - >> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8628, as well as an OpenID >> > Connect specification ("OpenID Connect Client-Initiated Backchannel >> > Authentication Flow - Core 1.0" - >> > https://openid.net/specs/openid-client-initiated-backchannel-authentication-core-1_0.html) >> > >> >> >> >> 3) Please carefully review the entries and their URLs in the >> >> References section 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> 4) Is there any text that requires special handling? For example: >> >> * Are there any sections that were contentious when the document was >> >> drafted? >> > >> > No >> > >> >> * Are any sections that need to be removed before publication marked as >> >> such >> >> (e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942)). >> > >> > No >> > >> >> * Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be edited >> >> the same way? >> > >> > No >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> 5) 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 **) >> >> >> > >> > Yes >> > >> >> >> >> 6) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing >> >> this >> >> document? >> >> >> > >> > No >> > >> >>> On Feb 24, 2026, at 4:21 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Author(s), >> >>> >> >>> Your document draft-ietf-oauth-cross-device-security-15, 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]
