Resending to direct this notice to the email address in the document.
> On Jul 20, 2026, at 3:08 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > 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]
