Hi Martine, This one also looks great!
Thank you, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Sep 16, 2025, at 9:16 AM, Martine Sophie Lenders > <martine.lend...@tu-dresden.de> wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > On 9/16/25 15:45, Sarah Tarrant wrote: >> Hi Martine, >> Thank you for your reply! >> A) Regarding: >>>> * Are the References, Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments >>>> sections current? >>> >>> For the most part, yes. However, there was a last minute typo found by Jan >>> Romann, so we’d like to add him to the list of thanks in our >>> acknowledgements. We have a change prepared for that in the working group >>> repo [1], however, not as a draft version. Should we just submit that as a >>> version now, or wait until AUTH48 for minor changes like that? >> Please submit a new version to datatracker so that it's clear where that >> change originated. > > See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap/20/ > >> B) Also, regarding "Regarding specific RFC numbers," - we have made a note >> of your request and will see if we can make it happen! >> After submitting the new draft to datatracker, please send along the >> self-contained markdown file to us so we can get started. > > Find attached. > > Best > Martine > >> Sincerely, >> Sarah Tarrant >> RFC PRoduction Center >>> On Sep 16, 2025, at 5:49 AM, Martine Sophie Lenders >>> <martine.lend...@tu-dresden.de> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Sarah, >>> >>> Find our reply to your questions inline. >>> >>> On 9/11/25 23:33, Sarah Tarrant wrote: >>>> [...] >>>> 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? >>> >>> Yes. >>> >>>> * Are the References, Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments >>>> sections current? >>> >>> For the most part, yes. However, there was a last minute typo found by Jan >>> Romann, so we’d like to add him to the list of thanks in our >>> acknowledgements. We have a change prepared for that in the working group >>> repo [1], however, not as a draft version. Should we just submit that as a >>> version now, or wait until AUTH48 for minor changes like that? >>> >>> [1] >>> https://github.com/core-wg/draft-dns-over-coap/commit/bf41ba46e2f211956cc11347ef3ce247db480216 >>> >>>> 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). >>> >>> All documents we derive terminology from are referenced in Section 2, >>> “Terminology and Conventions”. >>> >>>> * 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.) >>> >>> Please refer to the respective CoAP and DNS specification for most of that. >>> In general, we >>> >>> - Put hex dumps and examples in <tt/> >>> (e.g., <tt>ff 0a 00 04 03 64 6e 73</tt>), >>> - Put text strings occuring, e.g., in the format or IANA tables, >>> as well as the name of SvcParamKeys in quotation marks (e.g., >>> "application/dns-message", "coaps://[2001:db8::1]/", "alpn", …), >>> - Wrote DNS header fields, record type, and classes in ALLCAPS, >>> - Capitalized CoAP options (e.g., Uri-Path, Content-Format, …), and >>> - Protocol names and other proper names are capitalized. >>> >>> Examples are represented as code blocks, the human-readable parts are >>> loosely based on the output of the dig tool. >>> >>>> 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? >>> >>> There were no particularly contentious sections. However, Section 5.1 "DNS >>> Push Notifications and CoAP Observe" and Section 10 "Operational >>> Considerations" were quite heavily reworked (or in case of Section 10, >>> specifically created) during the IESG review stage. As they did not receive >>> as many eyeballs yet, they should receive extra attention. >>> >>>> 4) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing >>>> this >>>> document? >>> >>> No. >>> >>>> 5) This document uses one or more of the following text styles. >>>> Are these elements used consistently? >>>> * fixed width font (<tt/> or `) >>>> * italics (<em/> or *) >>>> * bold (<strong/> or **) >>> >>> Yes. >>> >>>> 6) This document is part of Cluster 554. >>>> * To help the reader understand the content of the cluster, is there a >>>> document in the cluster that should be read first? Next? If so, please >>>> provide >>>> the order and we will provide RFC numbers for the documents accordingly. >>>> If order is not important, please let us know. >>> >>> draft-ietf-core-coap-dtls-alpn is a normative reference for >>> draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap: The ALPN ID defined in >>> draft-ietf-core-coap-dtls-alpn is used for the discovery of DNS over CoAP >>> servers in draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap. This is the main reason why these >>> documents are clustered. As such, draft-ietf-core-coap-dtls-alpn should be >>> read first. We do not have any preferred order, in our eyes they do not >>> even need to sit right next to each other. >>> >>> Regarding specific RFC numbers, our co-author Christian Amsüss already >>> contacted rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org on Sep 11th: If that is something that >>> can be requested at all, we would love to have a number that ends in -53 >>> (referencing the DNS port number) or -84 (referencing the RFC8484/DoH >>> legacy) as a little easter egg for draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap. However, >>> we do see this as nothing more than an easter egg, so if that is not >>> possible or would delay publication too much, we are fine with any number. >>> >>>> * Is there any text that has been repeated within the cluster document that >>>> should be edited in the same way? For instance, parallel introductory text >>>> or >>>> Security Considerations. >>> >>> No. >>> >>>> 7) 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. >>> >>> Since we edited the draft originally in kramdown-rfc, yes. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Martine Lenders on behalf of all co-authors >>> >>>>> On Sep 11, 2025, at 4:29 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Author(s), >>>>> >>>>> Your document draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap-19, 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 >>>>> > <draft-ietf-core-dns-over-coap-20.md> -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
