Hi Owen and Dan, Thank you for your replies.
Dan - Regarding you question about clusters, my apologies for the lack of clarity. It sounds like you got some clarification already about how a cluster is a set of two or more documents that are normatively related. Here are some more resources for future reference. What is a Cluster? https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/clusters/ All Document Clusters: https://www.rfc-editor.org/all_clusters.php Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Oct 2, 2025, at 11:58 AM, Harkins, Dan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > OK, I have been informed of what "cluster 558" is. So I will agree with > Owen, we're good with 1-6. For 7 I would say that draft-ietf-emu-eap-arpa > should go before our draft and there is no repetitive text in the cluster > documents that need special attention. > > regards, > > Dan. > > -- > "the object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to > escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." – Marcus Aurelius > > On 10/2/25, 6:38 AM, "Owen Friel (ofriel)" <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think we are good with all of 1-7 below and no changes are needed. Dan > do you agree? > Thanks, > Owen > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday 1 October 2025 22:38 > To: Owen Friel (ofriel) <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Document intake questions about > <draft-ietf-emu-bootstrapped-tls-11> > > 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 > [email protected]. > > 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 still accurate? > * Are the References, Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and > Acknowledgments sections 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). > * 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.) > > > 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? > > > 4) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing > this > document? > > > 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 **) > > > 6) This document contains SVG. The RPC cannot update SVG diagrams, so > please > ensure that: > > * the SVG figures match the ASCII art used in the text output as closely > as > possible, and > * the figures fit on the pages of the PDF output. > > > 7) This document is part of Cluster 558. > > * 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. > * 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)? > > > >> On Oct 1, 2025, at 4:35 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> Author(s), >> >> Your document draft-ietf-emu-bootstrapped-tls-11, which has been approved >> for publication as >> an RFC, has been added to the RFC Editor queue >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php__;!!NpxR!iPHyzO10zieUXadSz2JkmnA3i0sD-triFl5fiCT0XOJhF7oC4rR9QC4lAxe-KH4Ygdx8RpNQXW4REyQ$ >> >. >> >> If your XML file was submitted using the I-D submission tool >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/__;!!NpxR!iPHyzO10zieUXadSz2JkmnA3i0sD-triFl5fiCT0XOJhF7oC4rR9QC4lAxe-KH4Ygdx8RpNQvgqlyR0$ >> >, 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/pubprocess/how-we-update/__;!!NpxR!iPHyzO10zieUXadSz2JkmnA3i0sD-triFl5fiCT0XOJhF7oC4rR9QC4lAxe-KH4Ygdx8RpNQeTgP0UQ$ >> >. >> Next, we will edit for clarity and apply the style guide >> (<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/__;!!NpxR!iPHyzO10zieUXadSz2JkmnA3i0sD-triFl5fiCT0XOJhF7oC4rR9QC4lAxe-KH4Ygdx8RpNQEcJO86A$ >> >). >> >> You can check the status of your document at >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php__;!!NpxR!iPHyzO10zieUXadSz2JkmnA3i0sD-triFl5fiCT0XOJhF7oC4rR9QC4lAxe-KH4Ygdx8RpNQXW4REyQ$ >> >. >> >> You will receive automatic notifications as your document changes >> queue state (for more information about these states, please see >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/queue/__;!!NpxR!iPHyzO10zieUXadSz2JkmnA3i0sD-triFl5fiCT0XOJhF7oC4rR9QC4lAxe-KH4Ygdx8RpNQk1c_bC8$ >> >). 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 -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
