Hi Yaroslav, Thank you for your reply and the heads-up about the new version.
While we await AD approval on those updates, I have a couple followup questions regarding the Markdown and GitHub pilots: A) Please provide a self-contained kramdown-rfc file so that we can proceed with markdown. B) Please also provide all author, AD, and/or document shepherd GitHub usernames so that we can include all approvers in the repo. Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On May 19, 2026, at 8:29 AM, Yaroslav Rosomakho <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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]
