Hi, Thanks for the email, I will be answering on behalf of the authors. Please see responses in line:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2026, at 22:05, [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? The Author's details are correct. I've realised we lack an Acknowledgements section. I can think of at least 1 or 2 people that probably did enough to deserve a nod. This seems like a minor matter that doesn't warrant cutting a whole new draft version, can we fix that up as part of AUTH48 please? The authors would like to confer some more on the specific names > > > 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. `Content-Digest`, should be capital cased in <tt> <tt> should be used for inline references to tokens or examples e.g., `{"title": "New Title"}` or `unsupported_algorithms` > > > 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. There is a reference to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-unencoded-digest-04 which is part of Cluster 577. > > > 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. They 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) This document is part of Cluster 577: > https://queue.rfc-editor.org/clusters/577/ > > * 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. I would suggest publishing https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-unencoded-digest/ with the lowest number, then https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpapi-digest-fields-problem-types/ with a higher number. Consecutive numbers would be nice but the subject matter doesn't strictly require it (we also cite RFC 9530 digests and so there's already going to be a huge gap :) ) > > * 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)? No repeated text. > > * 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? > 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. The markdown file that matches draft 05 (latest) can be found at https://github.com/ietf-wg-httpapi/digest-fields-problem-types/blob/main/draft-ietf-httpapi-digest-fields-problem-types.md, I have also attached a copy for convenience. Kind regards, Lucas
draft-ietf-httpapi-digest-fields-problem-types.md
Description: Binary data
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
