The HPE contact info is correct. -- Jeff
On 6/4/26, 16:52, "Sarah Tarrant" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Wim and Jeff, Could you please confirm your author information in the draft is correct and current? https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip/__;!!NpxR!lrxIIN9ZmyQHELg81JbqSlFD8BrVbcj2hZ1sR5K98S5p_4p6PjDj825-0FwgRbWw5JpBKkFGqiU0rKHB61J0G5OLdT0$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-flowspec-redirect-ip/__;!!NpxR!lrxIIN9ZmyQHELg81JbqSlFD8BrVbcj2hZ1sR5K98S5p_4p6PjDj825-0FwgRbWw5JpBKkFGqiU0rKHB61J0G5OLdT0$> If we do not hear back, we will move the document along and ask you again during Final Review. Thank you, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On May 29, 2026, at 3:26 PM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Hi Jeff, Wim, and Adam, > > Jeff - Thank you for your reply! Based on your response to the markdown/GH > questions, let's just stick with XML and the regular email process for this > document. > > Wim and Adam - Please confirm your author information that appears on the > document. > > Thank you, > Sarah Tarrant > RFC Production Center > >> On May 29, 2026, at 2:07 PM, Haas, Jeff >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote: >> >>> 1) As there may have been multiple updates made to the document during Last >>> Call, >>> please review the current version of the document: >>> >>> * Is the text in the Abstract still accurate? >> >> Yes. >> >>> * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments >>> sections current? >> >> My address block is correct. Wim and Adam should confirm that their address >> blocks reflect what they wish to show up in the RFC. >> >>> 2) Please share any style information that could help us with editing your >>> document. For example: >>> >>> >>> * Is your document's format or its terminology based on another document, >>> WG style guide, etc.? If so, please provide a pointer to that information >>> (e.g., "This document's terminology should match DNS terminology in >>> RFC 9499." or "This document uses the style info at >>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLqHrNSR3$ >>> >>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLqHrNSR3$><https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLqHrNSR3$ >>> >>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLqHrNSR3$>> >>> >."). >>> * Is there a general pattern of capitalization or formatting of terms that >>> editors can follow (e.g., "Field names should have initial capitalization." >>> or "Parameter names should be in double quotes." or "<tt/> should be used >>> for token names." etc.)? >> >> For both of these, the primary resources for style are RFCs 8955, 8956, 9117. >> >> The primary terms that require audit and editorial advice for consistency >> are: >> >> "redirect-to-IP", which should have some consistencies to the existing >> redirection methods in RFC 8955. >> >> "flow-spec". Unfortunately there is a wild degree of inconsistency in this >> document and to some extent in the other RFCs. The full term is "flow >> specification" and the short term is "flow spec". We would welcome editorial >> advice for making the uses of the full and short forms consistent within this >> document. The result of this will be propagated to other new work in IDR for >> flowspec version 2. >> >>> 3) Please carefully review the entries and their URLs in the >>> References section with the following in mind. Note that we will >>> update as follows unless we hear otherwise at this time: >>> >>> >>> * References to obsoleted RFCs will be updated to point to the current >>> RFC on the topic in accordance with Section 4.8.6 of RFC 7322 >>> (RFC Style Guide). >>> >>> >>> * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be >>> updated to point to the replacement I-D. >>> >>> >>> * References to documents from other organizations that have been >>> superseded will be updated to their superseding version. >>> >>> >>> Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use >>> idnits >>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLihDCjZm$ >>> >>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLihDCjZm$><https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLihDCjZm$ >>> >>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLihDCjZm$>> >>> >. You can also help the >>> IETF Tools Team by testing idnits3 >>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits3/__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLmTUTty8$ >>> >>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits3/__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLmTUTty8$><https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits3/__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLmTUTty8$ >>> >>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits3/__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLmTUTty8$>> >>> > >>> with your document and reporting any issues to them. >> >> I believe all references are current. The reference for RFC 7942 may be >> pruned >> along with appendix A per the instructions to remove the implementation >> status >> as part of publication. >> >>> 4) Is there any text that requires special handling? For example: >>> * Are there any sections that were contentious when the document was >>> drafted? >> >> Not particularly. >> >>> * Are any sections that need to be removed before publication marked as >>> such >>> (e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942)). >> >> See instructions in Appendix A. >> >>> * Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be edited >>> the same way? >> >> Not particularly. >> >>> 5) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for editing in >>> kramdown-rfc? >>> If so, please let us know and provide a self-contained kramdown-rfc file. >>> For more >>> information about this experiment, see: >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLgviRjxa$ >>> >>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLgviRjxa$><https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLgviRjxa$ >>> >>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLgviRjxa$>> >>> . >> >> Given author availability, I would suggest we stick with xml format for this >> process. However, if there's a desire to convert the document to kdrfc on our >> behalf, we wouldn't object. >> >>> 6) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for completing >>> AUTH48 in >>> GitHub? If so, please let us know and provide all author, AD, and/or >>> document >>> shepherd GitHub usernames. For more information about this experiment, see: >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=rpc-github-phase-0-pilot-test__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLtXV62Gh$ >>> >>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=rpc-github-phase-0-pilot-test__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLtXV62Gh$><https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=rpc-github-phase-0-pilot-test__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLtXV62Gh$ >>> >>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=rpc-github-phase-0-pilot-test__;!!NpxR!nRC_FBn4IOHewr1-Ll7vqGcy73K14TOo1yZu394uZIwDFo3iSdMl43in_oEyIV6rZkK5SbD9ipyD63IrLtXV62Gh$>> >>> . >> >> While I am willing (jhaas-pfrc is my ID), Wim and Adam have not been >> participating on github for the repository hosting this document. They may >> answer otherwise. >> >> -- Jeff > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
