Hello Sarah, As discussed, we just published revision -14 to correct the identified issue. We have also added an Acknowledgement section.
Please see the answers to your questions inline below. Thank you! Best Regards, Yaroslav On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 9:03 PM Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Yaroslav, > > Thank you for letting us know. I'll be on the lookout for the version > update notification. > > Sincerely, > Sarah Tarrant > RFC Production Center > > > On May 12, 2026, at 2:59 PM, Yaroslav Rosomakho <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hello Sarah, > > > > Thank you for the detailed guidance. > > > > We will publish one more revision to the datatracker to resolve a minor > contradiction spotted recently. We will let you know once that's done and > the document is ready for RPC. > > > > -yaroslav > > > > > > On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 8:32 AM 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? > > * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments > > sections current? > > Yes, the Abstract is accurate and all the mentioned sections are current. > > > > 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.)? > > > > This document extends the Provisioning Domains specification (RFC8801) and should be stylistically consistent with it. > > > 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. > > All the references are reasonable and there should have no issues. > > > > 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? > > Section 1.3 ("Note to the RFC Editor") and "Discussion Venues" need to be removed. JSON examples must remain valid JSONs. > > > > > 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 **) > > > > I believe we are consistent. > > > 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. > > We'd be happy to participate. > > > > > 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 > . > > We'd be happy to participate. > > > > > 8) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing > this > > document? > > > > > On May 11, 2026, at 10:29 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > Author(s), > > > > > > Your document draft-ietf-intarea-proxy-config-13, 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 > > > > > > > > > > > This communication (including any attachments) is intended for the sole > use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential, non-public, > and/or privileged material. Use, distribution, or reproduction of this > communication by unintended recipients is not authorized. If you received > this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and then > delete all copies of this communication from your system. > > > -- This communication (including any attachments) is intended for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential, non-public, and/or privileged material. Use, distribution, or reproduction of this communication by unintended recipients is not authorized. If you received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and then delete all copies of this communication from your system.
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
