Hi Mirja, Ah, that makes sense! I'm happy to remove them.
Thank you, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Mar 27, 2026, at 12:46 PM, Mirja Kuehlewind > <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]
