Hi Changwang and Acee, Changwang - Thank you for your reply!
Acee - That is correct. We're offering markdown as an additional option for authors who have been using markdown for their document creation or in case they just prefer it over XML. Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Mar 20, 2026, at 9:29 AM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Sarah, Changwang, > > I agree with Changwang's responses. > > With respect to the RPC pilot, I'm not sure why anyone who spent years > editing a draft for years using XM would want to switch to kramdown for the > RFC Editor phase. > I guess this is for authors that might have used kramdown in the first place? > > Thanks, > Acee > >> On Mar 20, 2026, at 3:15 AM, linchangwang <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Sarah, >> >> >> Thanks for this mail. >> Please find my replies inline. >> >> >> Thanks, >> Changwang >> >> -----邮件原件----- >> 发件人: Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> >> 发送时间: 2026年3月17日 0:25 >> 收件人: [email protected]; [email protected]; linchangwang >> (RD) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] >> 抄送: [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected] >> 主题: Document intake questions about <draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-ls-link-infinity-25> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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? >> >> Changwang: The text and the addresses are 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, WG >> style guide, etc.? If so, please provide a pointer to that information >> (e.g., "This document's terminology should match DNS terminology in RFC >> 9499." or "This document uses the style info at >> <https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide>."). >> * Is there a general pattern of capitalization or formatting of terms that >> editors can follow (e.g., "Field names should have initial capitalization." >> or "Parameter names should be in double quotes." or "<tt/> should be used >> for token names." etc.)? >> >> Changwang: The style information is nothing special. >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> Changwang: We agree with the standard updates for the references as proposed. >> >> 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? >> >> Changwang: There is no contentious text requiring special handling. >> >> 5) 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://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types.) >> >> Changwang: The information is correct. >> >> 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. >> >> Changwang: Thank you for the invitation, but we will not be participating in >> the RPC pilot test at this time. >> >> 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. >> >> Changwang: We will not be participating in the RPC pilot test at this time. >> >> 8) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this >> document? >> >> Changwang: There are no other items the RPC should be aware of at this time. >> >>> On Mar 16, 2026, at 11:21 AM, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> Author(s), >>> >>> Your document draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-ls-link-infinity-25, 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 >>> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 本邮件及其附件含有新华三集团的保密信息，仅限于发送给上面地址中列出的个人或群组。 >> 禁止任何其他人以任何形式使用（包括但不限于全部或部分地泄露、复制、或散发）本邮件中的信息。 >> 如果您错收了本邮件，请您立即电话或邮件通知发件人并删除本邮件！ >> This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from New >> H3C, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed >> above. >> Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not >> limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by >> persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. >> If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or >> email immediately and delete it! > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
