debcooley is my github handle. TYVM Deb
On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 3:08 AM Christian Bormann <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear RPC team, > > Thanks, below are the answers to the questions: > > 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? > > > Abstract is still accurate and Author’s names & email addresses are > current. > Acknowledgements should be current as well. > > 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.)? > > > Everything introduced in terminology is capitalised. > In terms of terminology, RFC9901 (SD-JWT) is an important reference for > the issuer-holder-verifier model that we’ve been following for this draft. > > 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 * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be 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 superseded will be updated to their superseding version.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 Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use 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. > > > We found a few smaller issues like sd-jwt vc having published a new > version (and I’d assume they will publish another version before IETF > Vienna). There also seem to be some minor problems with the txt rendering > of lists in the IANA section that I will try to resolve. > Should we release a new version with those fixes? > > 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? > > > Document history is present that is marked as “to be removed from the > final specification” > There are some TBD placeholders for IANA registration which need to be > adjusted once identifiers are assigned > > > 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 **) > > > No > > 6) This document contains sourcecode: > > * Does the sourcecode validate? > * Some sourcecode types (e.g., YANG) require certain references and/or > text > in the Security Considerations section. Is this information correct? > * Is the sourcecode type indicated in the XML? (See information about > types: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types.) > > > No > > 7) 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. > > > If it doesn’t delay publication, sure! Our repository containing the > markdown is at https://github.com/oauth-wg/draft-ietf-oauth-status-list > It is not a fully self-contained file right now though with the examples > in separate files. > > > 8) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for completing > Final Review > 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 > . > > > Same as 7) > > https://github.com/oauth-wg/draft-ietf-oauth-status-list > Author’s GitHub handles: c2bo, paulbastian, tplooker > AD: debcooley > Document Shepherd: rifaat-ietf > > (Deb, Rifaat please check, but these seem to be correct?) > > 9) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing > this > document? > > > Nothing we are aware of > > --- > > Best Regards, > > Paul, Tobias, Christian > > > On 4. Jun 2026, at 23:30, [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 > 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? > > > 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.)? > > > 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. > > > 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? > > > 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 **) > > > 6) This document contains sourcecode: > > * Does the sourcecode validate? > * Some sourcecode types (e.g., YANG) require certain references and/or > text > in the Security Considerations section. Is this information correct? > * Is the sourcecode type indicated in the XML? (See information about > types: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types.) > > > 7) 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. > > > 8) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for completing > Final Review > 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 > . > > > 9) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing > this > document? > > >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
