Hi Panos, Thank you for your reply!
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Jul 7, 2026, at 9:08 PM, Kampanakis, Panos > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi RPC Team, > > 1) Yes, version 9's Abstract is accurate. The Authors' Addresses, > Contributors, and Acknowledgments sections are also current. > > 2) N/A > > 3) Sounds good > > 4) N/A > > 5) No > > 6) No > > 7) No > > Thank you > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2026 4:25 PM > To: Kampanakis, Panos <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Document intake questions about > draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-mlkem > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click > links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the > content is safe. > > > > 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) 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. > > > 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. > > > 7) 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]
