HI RPC team, On Tue, Jul 7, 2026 at 9:04 AM <[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.)? > We're not following a specific style guide, but have made an effort to align the notation in our draft with previous RFCs published by the IPSECME working group, especially RFC 7296. Based on the feedback we received from the WG, we believe our document meets that standard. > 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). > There are no references to obsoleted RFCs. > * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be > updated to point to the replacement I-D. > There are no references to I-Ds. > * References to documents from other organizations that have been > superseded will be updated to their superseding version. > [DOWNGRADE] references a prerprint on ePrint (eprint.iacr.org). We could replace this reference with the proceedings version of the paper ( https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7546520). However we prefer the preprint because it's a bit more informative for our document. > Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use > idnits <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits>. > idnits found no issues with the references. > 4) Is there any text that requires special handling? For example: > > * Are there any sections that were contentious when the document was > drafted? > Not especially. "Security Considerations" received the most attention from reviewers, but we're confident we've addressed all concerns. > * Are any sections that need to be removed before publication marked as > such > (e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942))? > No sections need to be removed. > * Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be edited > the same way? > No. 5) Because this document updates RFC 7296, please review > the reported errata and confirm whether they have been addressed in this > document or are not relevant: > > * RFC 7296 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc7296) Great question. I've checked the errata, and none appear to be relevant to our document. > 6) 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. > We developed this draft with pure XML. The repo is here: https://github.com/smyslov/ikev2-downgrade-prevention > 7) 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 > . > Certainly! Authors: smyslov cjpatton AD: Debcooley Shepherd: Tero Kivinen, not on github to my knowledge. Repo: https://github.com/smyslov/ikev2-downgrade-prevention 8) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing > this > document? > Not to our knowledge. Best, Chris P. & Valery
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
