Hi Steve, Thank you for your reply and for letting us know about the <em> bug. We'll be sure to fix that.
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On May 14, 2026, at 7:49 AM, Steve Lhomme <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Sarah, > > My answers can be found inline below. > > Thanks a lot. > Steve > >> On 11 May 2026, at 16:41, 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? > > Yes > >> * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments >> sections current? > > Yes > >> 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>."). > > No. It uses a pseudo XML presentation of some elements but it doesn’t have to > match anything existing. > >> * 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.)? > > The tag names are all capital letters but that’s already mentioned in section > 3.2.1. > Some Matroska elements like TagName, SimpleTag,TagString, etc should match > the case in RFC9559. But that’s should already be the case. > The XML code should already have <tt></tt> around those names throughout the > document. > >> 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. > > This should be OK as it is but feel free to use some updates if needed. > >> 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 of the sort comes to my mind. > >> 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 **) > > They should be used consistently, if not that’s a mistake on our side. > Looking at the XML to double check I just realised there is a formatting > mistake in section 6.1. There is a <em> in the XML instead of a "_" > underscore character. There’s a closing </em> later in that paragraph which > is also bogus. The <em> should be replaced with “_” and the </em> removed. > Similar use in 3.2.1 is correct. > >> 6) This document contains sourcecode: >> >> * Does the sourcecode validate? > > The ABNF code ones should be valid. > The pseudo-XML should have proper opening/closing tags but is not actual XML > (no XML header for example). > > >> * Some sourcecode types (e.g., YANG) require certain references and/or text >> in the Security Considerations section. Is this information correct? > > All sourcecode sections are for documentation, they are not meant to describe > actual code to use. > >> * Is the sourcecode type indicated in the XML? (See information about >> types: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types.) > > Yes, they have either the “abnf” or “xml” type attribute. > >> 7) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this >> document? > > Not on top of my head apart from the bug mentioned above. > >>> On May 11, 2026, at 9:37 AM, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> Author(s), >>> >>> Your document draft-ietf-cellar-tags-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 -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
