Hi Simon, Thank you for your reply!
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Oct 8, 2025, at 3:09 AM, Simon Josefsson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> writes: > >> 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. > > I'm not aware of any need to update the document right now. The latest > XML upload is still current. > >> 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? > > Yes > >> 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). > > The document is a cut'n'paste from RFC 8731 and while several changes > are intentional and important, I think generally it helps to try to keep > the text as close as possible to the previous document. Reformatting > text without strong technical rationale makes it harder to track what is > important in the changes. It isn't unlikely that this document will be > used a model for other similar documents in the future too. > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8731.html > > Of course terminology from all Normative References are critical and > re-used in this document. > >> * 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.) > > Yes, upper case for SSH_MSG_KEX_ECDH_INIT etc and lower-case for > sntrup761x25519-sha512 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? > > The document is quite dense so even a tiny change can be significant and > controversial, but this is true for almost all documents I guess. > >> 4) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this >> document? > > Have fun! > > /Simon > >> >>> On Oct 1, 2025, at 4:06 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> Author(s), >>> >>> Your document draft-ietf-sshm-ntruprime-ssh-06, 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 -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
