Thanks! Answers to questions inline. On Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 1:03 PM Sarah Tarrant <starr...@staff.rfc-editor.org> 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 hear > from you > (that is, your document will remain in AUTH state until we receive a > reply). Even > if you don't have guidance or don't feel that you need to make any updates > to the > document, you need to let us know. After we hear from you, your document > will start > moving through the queue. You will be able to review and approve our > updates > during AUTH48. > > Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have at > rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org. > > 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 is still accurate? > It is still accurate. > * Are the References, Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and > Acknowledgments > sections current? > They are current. > 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? > If so, please provide a pointer to that document (e.g., this document's > terminology should match DNS terminology in RFC 9499). > Terminology is based on RFC 5280. > * Is there a pattern of capitalization or formatting of terms? (e.g., > field names > should have initial capitalization; parameter names should be in double > quotes; > <tt/> should be used for token names; etc.) > Capitalization convention is the same as RFC 5280. I didn't apply any formatting convention to field names, etc., but have no particular preference. > 3) Is there any text that should be handled extra cautiously? For example, > are > there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? Will defer to chairs, but nothing in particular comes to mind. > 4) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing > this > document? > Nothing comes to mind. > 5) Because this document updates RFC 5280, please review > the reported errata and confirm that they have either been addressed in > this > document or are not relevant: > > * RFC 5280 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc5280) > Errata are not relevant to this 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. > The kramdown-rfc file for draft-10 can be found here: https://github.com/davidben/x509-alg-none/blob/draft-ietf-lamps-x509-alg-none-10/draft-ietf-lamps-x509-alg-none.md > > On Sep 8, 2025, at 11:53 AM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > > > Author(s), > > > > Your document draft-ietf-lamps-x509-alg-none-10, which has been approved > for publication as > > an RFC, has been added to the RFC Editor queue > > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php>. > > > > If your XML file was submitted using the I-D submission tool > > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/>, we have already retrieved it > > and have started working on it. > > > > If you did not submit the file via the I-D submission tool, or > > if you have an updated version (e.g., updated contact information), > > please send us the file at this time by attaching it > > in your reply to this message and specifying any differences > > between the approved I-D and the file that you are providing. > > > > You will receive a separate message from us asking for style input. > > Please respond to that message. When we have received your response, > > your document will then move through the queue. The first step that > > we take as your document moves through the queue is converting it to > > RFCXML (if it is not already in RFCXML) and applying the formatting > > steps listed at <https://www.rfc-editor.org/pubprocess/how-we-update/>. > > Next, we will edit for clarity and apply the style guide > > (<https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/>). > > > > You can check the status of your document at > > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php>. > > > > You will receive automatic notifications as your document changes > > queue state (for more information about these states, please see > > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/queue/>). When we have completed > > our edits, we will move your document to AUTH48 state and ask you > > to perform a final review of the document. > > > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > > > Thank you. > > > > The RFC Editor Team > > > >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
