Hi RFC team, Thanks for your help on this document. We are about to publish a revised version to address the remaining comments from Roman.
A few responses in the meantime: 1) No changes needed to Authors' Addresses, Contributors, or Acknowledgments. 2) No separate style guide to share. Terminology follows "DNS Terminology" [RFC 9499]. 3) References look current 4) Yes, <tt> is used consistently. 5) Figures 1 and 2 are JSON — please use <sourcecode type="json">. Figure 3 shows the option wire format (containing the TBD1 code point), so <artwork> is preferred. 6) No, thank you — no kramdown-rfc pilot for this document. 7) No, thank you — no GitHub Final Review pilot. Nothing further at this time. Cheers, -Tiru On Wed, 29 Jul 2026 at 05:04, <[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) 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]
