Hi Mike, Got it! Looks great.
Thank you, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Jun 23, 2026, at 9:46 AM, Mike West <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hey Sarah (and thanks Lucas!), > > The markdown file for -05 is > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/httpwg/http-extensions/refs/tags/draft-ietf-httpbis-unencoded-digest-05/draft-ietf-httpbis-unencoded-digest.md. > I'll attach it as well, just in case that's simpler. > > Thanks! > > -mike > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2026 at 4:11 PM Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> > wrote: > Hi Lucas, > > Thank you for your reply. > > I appreciate your enthusiasm for markdown. Could you send me the > self-contained markdown file that matches the approved version in > datatracker? > > Sincerely, > Sarah Tarrant > RFC Production Center > > > On Jun 22, 2026, at 5:50 PM, Lucas Pardue <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Thanks for the email, I will be answering on behalf of the authors. Please > > see responses in line: > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2026, at 22:27, [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? > > > > Yes > >> > >> > >> > >> * 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.)? > > > > To answer both of these, we have attempted to match the style and > > terminology of RFC 9530, which itself attempts to channel the HTTP > > editorial style guidelines in https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide. > > We expect readers to use this doc in combination with RFC 9530 so > > consistency with it is important. If there is a conflict, prefer RFC 9530. > > > > HTTP Header field names, e.g. Repr-Digest or Unencoded-Digest, should be > > capital cased in <tt> > >> > >> > >> 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>. > > > > There are a small number of references and they all look ok to me. > >> > >> > >> > >> 4) Is there any text that requires special handling? For example: > >> > >> * Are there any sections that were contentious when the document was > >> drafted? > > > > No > >> > >> > >> > >> * Are any sections that need to be removed before publication marked as > >> such > >> (e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942))? > > > > Yes, the "About This Document" section > >> > >> > >> > >> * Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be edited > >> the same way? > > > > N/A > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> 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 **) > > > > We _tried_ to apply them consistently. I suspect we may have failed to hit > > 100% success :-) > >> > >> > >> > >> 6) This document appears to contain a formal language (or code / code > >> snippets that will be marked with <sourcecode> in this document's > >> XML file). See https://authors.ietf.org/formal-languages. > >> > >> * Does it validate? > > > > Several instance are of type '<sourcecode type="http-message" ...', these > > are automatically validated as part of the HTTP WG drafting process. There > > were also semantically validated during last call and directorate reviews. > >> > >> > >> > >> * Some formal languages (e.g., YANG) require certain reference entries > >> and/or boilerplate in the Security Considerations section (see the link > >> above for more information). Please confirm that this document matches > >> the current guidance for the language type. > > > > Confirmed > >> > >> > >> > >> * Unless already indicated in a submitted XML file for this document, > >> please let us know what type should be used for the <sourcecode> element > >> for each module/snippet/etc. (See information about <sourcecode> types > >> at https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types.) > > > > Several instance are of type '<sourcecode type="http-message" ...' > > > >> > >> > >> 7) Because this document updates RFC 9530, please review > >> the reported errata and confirm whether they have been addressed in this > >> document or are not relevant: > >> > >> * RFC 9530 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc9530) > > > > All errata have been checked and are not relevant to be addressed in this > > document. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> 8) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing > >> this > >> document? > > Our authoring process uses Markdown. If there's any way for us to be opted > > in to the markdown RFC process we'd love to do that. If that's not > > possible, we'll deal with it. > > > > Kind regards > > Lucas > > > <draft-ietf-httpbis-unencoded-digest.md> -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
