Hi Henk, Thank you for your reply.
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Jul 1, 2026, at 10:37 AM, Henk Birkholz <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear RPC team, > > the document looks good now an any editorial nits that might still remain we > can fix in concert with the RPC team. > > Thanks! > > > Viele Grüße, > > Henk > > > > On 29.06.26 23:26, [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 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? >> * 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. >> * 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.) >> 7) This document is part of Cluster 557: >> https://queue.rfc-editor.org/clusters/557/ >> * 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]
