Hi Nicola, Thank you for your reply. I have a couple comments below. Please note that B) does require one further action from you.
A) Regarding: >> 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). > I don’t think we reference any obsolete RFCs. If you find an obsolete > reference, please let me know in case you change it. We will be sure to ask first. >> >> * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be 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 superseded will be updated to their superseding version. > > For the X.509 reference, we’d like to leave the reference to the 10/2016 > version, which is the most accurate. Could you leave as it is? > Ok for the others. ACK! B) Regarding: >> 6) This document contains SVG. What tool did you use to make the svg? > aasvg from the corresponding ASCII art > >> The RPC cannot update SVG diagrams, so please ensure that: >> * the SVG figures match the ASCII art used in the text output as closely as >> possible, and >> * the figures fit on the pages of the PDF output. > How do we check that figures fit a PDF and in which format? > Checking in text and HTML, they do seem to fit, but there are a few large > figures. > We use aasvg, so they should be in sync with the text version. For making and checking a PDF output, you can use the IETF Author Tools: https://author-tools.ietf.org/. If you could just make sure the SVG fits on the PDF output, that would help us a lot. C) Regarding: >> 8) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this >> document? > Do you need answers to the same questions for -controlplane and -dataplane? We will send out this same Intake form (perhaps slightly different questions depending on the contents of each) when we receive the drafts in our queue. Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Jun 22, 2026, at 4:55 PM, Nicola Rustignoli > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear 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, abstract and Acknowledgements are accurate. > On authors: Corine De Kater should be marked as Independent (even though most > of her contributions were done while she was at SCION Association). I’m not > sure if there is a policy on this. She appears as Independent on the two > other drafts in the cluster. > >> >> 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>."). > We use some terminology from RFC9473. We did not follow a specific style > guide, but we tried to keep style consistent across the three documents in > the cluster. > > >> * 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.)? > We capitalized: > - component names (e.g., Control Plane, Control Plane PKI, ISD, …). We did > not capitalize them when such terms are attached to another term (e.g., > control plane message) > - roles (e.g., Voter) > For field names, we used the same capitalization as in the ASN.1 module in > the appendix (e.g., `gracePeriod`) > >> >> 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). > I don’t think we reference any obsolete RFCs. If you find an obsolete > reference, please let me know in case you change it. > >> >> * 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. > > For the X.509 reference, we’d like to leave the reference to the 10/2016 > version, which is the most accurate. Could you leave as it is? > Ok for the others. > >> >> Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use >> idnits <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits>. >> >> >> 4) Is there any text that requires special handling? For example: >> >> * Are there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted > I don’t think there are any. > >> >> * Are any sections that need to be removed before publication marked as such >> (e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942))? > Change Log at the end > >> * Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be edited >> the same way? > We tried to avoid repeated text as much as possible. Part of the intro is > repeated across drafts in the cluster (see point 7). > >> >> 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 **) > Bold is used consistently in the terminology section. > Bold and italics are used sometimes to highlight text through the rest of the > document, especially some italic, but I’m not sure this is always consistent. > >> >> >> 6) This document contains SVG. What tool did you use to make the svg? > aasvg from the corresponding ASCII art > >> >> The RPC cannot update SVG diagrams, so please ensure that: >> >> * the SVG figures match the ASCII art used in the text output as closely as >> possible, and >> >> * the figures fit on the pages of the PDF output. > How do we check that figures fit a PDF and in which format? > Checking in text and HTML, they do seem to fit, but there are a few large > figures. > We use aasvg, so they should be in sync with the text version. >> >> >> >> >> 7) This document is part of Cluster 571: >> https://queue.rfc-editor.org/clusters/571/ >> >> * To help the reader understand the content of the cluster, is there a >> document in the cluster that should be read first? Next? If so, please >> provide >> the order and we will provide RFC numbers for the documents accordingly. >> If order is not important, please let us know. > Yes, draft-dekater-scion-controlplane contains an extended introduction and > should be read first. > Then I suggest -dataplane, then -pki. > > > >> * Is there any text that has been repeated within the cluster document that >> should be edited in the same way (for instance, parallel introductory text >> or >> Security Considerations)? > 1. Introduction: it contains a general introduction. -controlplane contains > an extended introduction, while -pki and -dataplane point to the extended > intro in -controlplane > 1.1. Terminology: terms that are relevant to the draft may be repeated > across draftds. Each draft only contains terms that are relevant to it. > Remaining paragraphs of the introduction are draft specific (from 1.2 on). > > Security considerations may touch similar topics, but contain distinct > considerations and often cross reference to other drafts in the cluster. > >> * For more information about clusters, see: >> https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfc-publication-process#clusters >> >> * For a list of all current clusters, see: >> https://queue.rfc-editor.org/clusters/ >> >> >> 8) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this >> document? > > Do you need answers to the same questions for -controlplane and -dataplane? > > Thank you, > Best > Nicola > > >> On 22 Jun 2026, at 22:00, [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>. >> >> >> 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 SVG. What tool did you use to make the svg? >> >> The RPC cannot update SVG diagrams, so please ensure that: >> >> * the SVG figures match the ASCII art used in the text output as closely as >> possible, and >> >> * the figures fit on the pages of the PDF output. >> >> >> 7) This document is part of Cluster 571: >> https://queue.rfc-editor.org/clusters/571/ >> >> * To help the reader understand the content of the cluster, is there a >> document in the cluster that should be read first? Next? If so, please >> provide >> the order and we will provide RFC numbers for the documents accordingly. >> If order is not important, please let us know. >> >> * Is there any text that has been repeated within the cluster document that >> should be edited in the same way (for instance, parallel introductory text >> or >> Security Considerations)? >> >> * For more information about clusters, see: >> https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfc-publication-process#clusters >> >> * For a list of all current clusters, see: >> https://queue.rfc-editor.org/clusters/ >> >> >> 8) 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]
