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) Please consider whether any updates to the following are needed: - Authors' Addresses - Contributors - Acknowledgments 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) This document uses the text style <tt>. Is this element used consistently? 5) 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? * 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. * 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.) In particular, may we update figures 1 and 2 to be <sourcecode type="json">? Perhaps figure 3 should be <sourcecode type=""> (i.e., type is empty) or is <artwork> preferred? 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. 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 GitHub usernames for the authors, document shepherd, and WG Chairs. For more information about this experiment, see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=rpc-github-phase-0-pilot-test. 8) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this document? Title : Structured Error Data for Filtered DNS Author(s) : Dan Wing, Tirumaleswar Reddy.K, Neil Cook, Mohamed Boucadair Working Group Chair(s) : Benno Overeinder, Ondřej Surý Area Director(s) : Mohamed Boucadair, Mahesh Jethanandani -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
