Ray,
While reviewing this document during Final Review, please resolve (as
necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file.
1) <!-- [rfced] May we adjust the text below as follows for readability (and to
make the sentence/verb more active)?
Original:
In [RFC9619], RFC1035 is updated to only permit a single question in a
QUERY (OpCode=0) request.
Perhaps:
[RFC9619] updates RFC 1035 [STD13] to only permit a single question in a
QUERY (OpCode=0) request.
-->
2) <!-- [rfced] Please review Figures 1 and 2 in the text and compare with the
same figures in HTML and PDF. Are the plus signs intended as markers? They do
not appear in the HTML or PDF files. Please let us know if this is as expected
or if an update is needed.
-->
3) <!-- [rfced] What is the subject of the sentence below? Is it correct that
this is the continued definition of "OPTION-DATA", so the text should be
indented?
Original:
A list of 2-octet values in network order (MSB first) each specifying
a DNS RRTYPE that must be for a data RRTYPE as described in
Section 3.1 of [RFC6895].
-->
4) <!-- [rfced] For readability, we have added additional punctuation to the
text
below (and have made the one sentence into two separate sentences). Please
review.
Original:
This might happen, for example, if the primary query resulted in a NOERROR
response but a QTx query resulted in a SERVFAIL, or if the primary response
has AA=0 but a QTx response has AA=1, such as might happen if the NS and DS
records were both requested at the parent side of a zone cut.
Current:
This might happen, for example, if the primary query resulted in a NOERROR
response, but a QTx query resulted in a SERVFAIL. This could also happen
if the primary response has AA=0, but a QTx response has AA=1, which might
happen if the NS and DS records were both requested at the parent side of a
zone cut.
-->
5) <!-- [rfced] Please review the following questions regarding the terminology
and abbreviations used in this document:
a) We note different capitalization of the terms below. Please review and let
us know how to update each item for consistency:
Question section vs. question section
Answer section vs. answer section
MQTYPE-Query vs. MQType-Query
b) FYI - We have added expansions for abbreviations upon first use
per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each
expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness.
most significant bit (MSB)
Internet Systems Consortium (ISC)
-->
6) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online
Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically
result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers.
Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should
still be reviewed as a best practice.
-->
Thank you.
Kaelin Foody and Sandy Ginoza
RFC Production Center
On Jul 20, 2026, at 3:05 PM, [email protected] wrote:
*****IMPORTANT*****
RFC Author(s):
--------------
Final Review for RFC-to-be 10029 <draft-ietf-dnssd-multi-qtypes>
Your document is now available for Final Review (previously AUTH48). Once it
has been
reviewed and approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies;
see the Unavailable Authors section
(https://authors.ietf.org/rfc-publication-process#unavailable-authors).
You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing
your approval.
Planning your review
---------------------
Please review the following aspects of your document:
* RFC Editor questions
Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
follows:
<!-- [rfced] ... -->
These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
* Changes submitted by coauthors
Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you
agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
* Content
Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to:
- IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
- contact information
- references
* Copyright notices and legends
Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
(TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
* Semantic markup
Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of
content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode>
and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at
<https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
* Formatted output
Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is
reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting
limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
Submitting changes
------------------
To submit changes, please reply to this email using 'REPLY ALL' as all
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties
include:
* your coauthors
* [email protected] (the RPC team)
* other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
* [email protected], which is an archival mailing list
to preserve discussion about the document while in the RPC editorial
queue; it is not an active discussion list:
* More info:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
* The archive itself:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
* Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out
of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you
have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
[email protected] will be re-added to the CC list and
its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
An update to the provided XML file
— OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format
Section # (or indicate Global)
OLD:
old text
NEW:
new text
You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text,
and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in
the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
Approving for publication
--------------------------
To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use 'REPLY ALL',
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
Files
-----
The files are available here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10029.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10029.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10029.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10029.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10029-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10029-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Tracking progress
-----------------
Details on the status of your Final Review are here:
https://queue.rfc-editor.org/final-review/rfc10029/
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC 10029 (draft-ietf-dnssd-multi-qtypes)
Title : DNS Multiple QTYPEs
Author(s) : R. Bellis
WG Chair(s) : Chris Box, Florian Obser
Area Director(s) : Tommy Jensen, Éric Vyncke
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
