Hi Jim, Thank you!
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Mar 9, 2026, at 11:10 AM, <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > I've taken the liberty of filling the requested > information below. Please let us know if there > is anything else that you require from us on this > or anything else. Thanks! > > Take care. > > Jim > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> > Sent: March 9, 2026 12:00 PM > To: Stefan Kölbl <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: Document intake questions about <draft-ietf-pquip-hbs-state-04> > > Hi Stefan, > > Thank you for your reply! > > One followup question: Regarding the authors' usernames, could you add their > name with their usernames? We're still learning everyone's usernames and > aren't sure which names to match with which usernames. > > • thomwiggers -- Thom Wiggers > • fluppe2 ------ Stavros Kousidis > • crypto4a ----- Jim Goodman > • kste --------- Stefan Kölbl > • BashiriK ----- Kaveh Bashiri > > > Sincerely, > Sarah Tarrant > RFC Production Center > >> On Mar 9, 2026, at 10:06 AM, Stefan Kölbl <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Sarah, >> >> Thank you for reaching out. Here are the answers to your questions: >> >> 1) As there may have been multiple updates made to the document >> during Last Call, please review the current version of the document: >> • >> The text in the Abstract is still accurate. >> • Author information and addresses are correct. >> 2) Please share any style information that could help us with editing >> your document. For example: >> • >> Terminology: The document’s terminology is primarily based on the >> specifications for Stateful HBS: RFC 8391 (XMSS), RFC 8554 (LMS/HSS), and >> NIST SP 800-208. >> • References: The reference to CNSA 2.0 should be updated to link to >> https://media.defense.gov/2025/May/30/2003728741/-1/-1/0/CSA_CNSA_2.0_ALGORITHMS.PDF >> and have a 30 May 2025 date. >> • Capitalization: "Stateful HBS" is used as the standard acronym for the >> signature schemes. >> • Formatting: Defined terms are formatted in italics e.g. *state* or _state >> management_. In definition lists, these are formatted in bold followed by a >> colon, e.g. Section 2 *private_key*. >> 3) No issues have been identified. >> 4) No contentious sections or special handling required. Only the "About >> this document" section needs removal before publication. >> 5) This document uses one or more of the following text styles. Are these >> elements used consistently? >> >> There are currently some inconsistencies: >> • >> Some terms (like _stateless_, *state*) are formatted in italics in the text, >> but this formatting is only applied once. >> • key import/key export are formatted in italics on further use, while other >> terms are not. >> >> 6) Yes, we would like to participate in the kramdown-rfc pilot. >> 7) Yes, we would like to participate in the GitHub pilot. The authors' >> GitHub usernames are: thomwiggers, fluppe2, crypto4a, kste, BashiriK >> 8) Nothing else for the RPC to be aware of. >> >> Kind regards, >> Stefan >> >> On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 11:12 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? >> * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments >> sections 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.) >> >> >> 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? >> * Are any sections that need to be removed before publication marked >> as such (e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942)). >> * Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be >> edited the same way? >> >> >> 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 **) >> >> >> 6) 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. >> >> >> 7) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for completing >> AUTH48 in GitHub? If so, please let us know and provide all author, >> AD, and/or document shepherd GitHub usernames. For more information about >> this experiment, see: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=rpc-github-phase-0-pilot-test. >> >> >> 8) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while >> editing this document? >> >>> On Mar 3, 2026, at 4:09 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> Author(s), >>> >>> Your document draft-ietf-pquip-hbs-state-04, 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]
