Sorry for missing some of the questions. Please see below inline for the answers.
Linda On Thu, Jun 4, 2026 at 11:54 AM Linda Dunbar <[email protected]> wrote: > Please see inline below marked [Linda] for the answers to your questions: > > > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2026 at 10:14 AM <[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. >> >> [Linda] No update isneeded to the document. The latest revision (-v37) > has addressed all the issues. > >> >> Please note that the RPC team will not work on your document until we >> receive a >> reply. We require a reply, even if you don’t have guidance or don’t feel >> that you >> need to make any updates to the document. After we hear from you, your >> document >> will start moving through the queue. You will be able to review and >> approve our >> updates during Final Review (formerly 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? >> >> [Linda] Yes. The Text in the Abstract is still accurate. Authors' addresses are current. > >> 2) Please share any style information that could help us with editing >> your >> document. For example: >> >> [LInda] not particular style needed * 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.)? >> >> [Linda] no. > >> 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. >> >> [Linda] Okay > >> 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? >> >> [Linda] No > >> 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing >> this >> document? >> > [Linda] No
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
