Hi Acee, Hope you don’t mind me jumping in here…
Whether publication of an RFC gets delayed due to an informative reference is up to the authors - we do not normally hold publication for an informative reference. For draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis, our understanding is that an issue is being discussed and we do not have a timeline for completion. Because the reference is informative, we can refer to the draft if RFC-to-be 9846 has not already been published. Regarding queue times, we empathize; you don’t like the delay and we don’t either. We appreciate your comments and will discuss your concern about the growing queue times. Please note that the pilot programs are in response to community requests over many years. We recently moved to new tools that should help us streamline document processing with these pilot programs and help improve overall production times, transparency, etc. For more background on the pilot programs and the tools, please see the RFC Production Center reports that Jean has been sending out monthly (the most recent one is available here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-interest/ZsnXqJfDvFtreQF3kcrRGglVuFg/). Please feel free to send your comments and concerns to [email protected] for further discussion. Thanks, Sandy Ginoza RFC Production Center > On Jun 17, 2026, at 2:32 PM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > What about the current backlog? When can we expect 48 hours for this > document? > It may be just me, but I'd rather see more effort on backlog reduction than > pilots and process... > > Also, do you hold documents based on informative references? We had a comment > to use [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis] > rather than RFC 8446, but this document seems to be in a perennial "In > Progress" state. > > Thanks, > Acee > >> On Jun 17, 2026, at 5:25 PM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Acee, >> >> My apologies :( I was trying to ask some preliminary questions as concisely >> as possible, but I can see how the routine questions sound oddly mechanical. >> >> Thank you for your reply. >> >> Sincerely, >> Sarah Tarrant >> RFC Production Center >> >>> On Jun 17, 2026, at 3:48 PM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> The document has just been through an WG last call, AD review, IETF last >>> call, and IESG telechat review. >>> Hence, I find this form Email at best perfunctory, I won't say at worst 😉 >>> See responses inline. Please note >>> especially the response to question 7. >>> >>> >>>> On Jun 17, 2026, at 4:08 PM, [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? >>> >>> Yes >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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.)? >>> >>> Follow conventions for YANG models (e.g., RFC 9907). >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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>. >>> >>> References are good. [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis] is also on RFC queue. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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? >>> >>> No. Examples have the following note as required. >>> >>> Note: '\' line wrapping per [RFC8792]. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc. >>> >>> >>> No. >>>> >>>> >>>> 6) 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. >>> >>> No. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 7) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing >>>> this >>>> document? >>> >>> Yes - hopefully, the goal of 60 days on the RFC Editor Queue will be met. >>> >>> Acee >> >> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
