Hi Dave, Thank you for your reply!
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Apr 1, 2026, at 4:48 PM, Dave Thaler <[email protected]> wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 8:57 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Document intake questions about >> <draft-ietf-teep-otrp-over-http-15> >> >> Hi Dave, >> >> I'm re-sending the document intake form as I believe I used an old email >> address >> of yours. > > You found the correct address now, thanks! > >> >> Please see below. >> >> Thank you! >> Sarah Tarrant >> RFC Production Center >> >>> On Mar 24, 2026, at 10:42 AM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Author(s), >>> >>> Congratulations, your document has been moved to AUTH state! >>> 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? > > Please update Author's Address to use this: > > Dave Thaler > Armidale Consulting > Email: [email protected] > > (The email address above just forwards to my [email protected] but helps > with mail rules.) > >>> 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.)? > > Terminology and capitalization should match RFC 9397 (TEEP Architecture). > >>> 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. > > Nothing special to be aware of, just do the usual. Obviously > RFC 9397 replaces I-D.ietf-teep-architecture. > >>> 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? > > Nothing unusual. > >>> 5) This document is part of Cluster 480: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C480 >>> >>> * To help the reader understand the content of the cluster, is there a >>> document in the cluster that should be read first? Next? If so, please >>> provide the order and we will provide RFC numbers for the documents >> accordingly. >>> If order is not important, please let us know. > > I think order is not essential though if convenient, maybe assign > draft-ietf-teep-protocol one number and give this document the next > number. > >>> * Is there any text that has been repeated within the cluster document >>> that should be edited in the same way (for instance, parallel >>> introductory text or Security Considerations)? >>> * For more information about clusters, see >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/clusters/ >>> * For a list of all current clusters, see: >>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/all_clusters.php > > Nothing special. > >>> 6) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while >>> editing this document? > > Nothing special. > >>>> On May 17, 2023, at 4:11 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>> Author(s), >>>> >>>> Your document draft-ietf-teep-otrp-over-http-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. >>>> >>>> If you have any style guidance for the terms used in your document >>>> (capitalization, hyphenation, use of quotation marks and underscores, >>>> etc.), please send us mail with your draft string in the subject line. >>>> This should help increase the pace with which documents move through >>>> the RFC Editor 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 > > Let me know if you have any other questions, > Dave -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
