Hi Sarah, sorry I missed those because these are apparently the result of the kramdown processes applied to back-quoted strings. We edited this paragraph just recently during last call and therefore probably haven't been editorial consistent here. I think we can just remove them.
Mirja On 27.03.26, 17:57, "Sarah Tarrant" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Mirja, Thank you for your reply. I found five instances of <tt> tag usage in Section 2.4: - <tt>0x6b26114b9cba2b63a9e8dd4f</tt> - <tt>3</tt> - <tt>54321</tt> - <tt>0xd431</tt> - <tt>0x6b2611489cba2b63a9e8097e</tt> In just one paragraph: For example, assuming the IV value is 0x6b26114b9cba2b63a9e8dd4f, the path ID is 3, and the packet number is 54321 (hex value 0xd431), the nonce will be set to 0x6b2611489cba2b63a9e8097e, as illustrated below: I just wanted to make sure that this is intentional and ask if there is a pattern that needs to be followed throughout the document. Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Mar 27, 2026, at 11:26 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > I will act as the main author to reply to you and coordinate with the other > authors. > > Please see my replies below inline prefixed with [MK]. > > Thanks! > Mirja > > > On 19.03.26, 21:41, "Sarah Tarrant" <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[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? > > [MK] Yes the abstract was actually updated during WGLC and is therefore still > accurate. > > * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments > sections current? > > [MK] The author addresses have been updated kind of recently and should be > correct. I'll double-check if we need to add anybody from the last call > reviews to acknowledgement section and come back to you. However, I hope this > would not uphold the process and we don't have to submit a new version for > this but instead we can still update this later in auth48 if needed. > > > > > 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>." > <https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide;> > <https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide;> > <https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide;>). > > [MK] Yes, we were aiming to align terminology with QUIC (RFC9000) as stated > in section 1.1. on Conventions and Definitions. > > * 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.)? > > [MK] Yes, field names are used with each word the initial capitalized, > similar as in RFC9000. > > > > 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> > <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits;> > <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits;> > <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits;>. You can also help the > IETF Tools Team by testing idnits3 <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits3/> > <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits3/;> > <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits3/;> > <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits3/;> > with your document and reporting any issues to them. > > [MK] There are no references to obsoleted RFCs, drafts, or document from > other organizations. > > > > > 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? > > [MK] There are various part that have undergone detailed discussed and > careful wording, however, I think we have to address this when/if we get > there. > > > > > 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 **) > > [MK] These are not used. > > > > > 6) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this > document? > > [MK] I don't think so. > > > > >> On Mar 19, 2026, at 3:38 PM, [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Author(s), >> >> Your document draft-ietf-quic-multipath-21, 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> >> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php;> >> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php;> >> <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/> >> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/;> >> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/;> >> <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/> >> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/pubprocess/how-we-update/;> >> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/pubprocess/how-we-update/;> >> <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/> >> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/;> >> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/;> >> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/;>). >> >> You can check the status of your document at >> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php> >> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php;> >> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php;> >> <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/> >> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/queue/;> >> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/queue/;> >> <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]
