Hi Sarah, Thanks for the note.
The biggest issue will be consistent use of <tt> for code values. I was finding it was causing confusion in the .txt version as there is no font change, bolding, or quotations. What is the current recommendation? I can revise based on usage recommendations. As for errata, these are not part of the document and should be dealt with separately. Sorry I have not gotten around to it. Phil > On Oct 21, 2025, at 2:57 PM, Sarah Tarrant <[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 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 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) Please review the entries in the References section carefully 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>. You can also help the > IETF Tools Team by testing idnits3 <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits3/> > with your document and reporting any issues to them. > > > 4) Is there any text that should be handled extra cautiously? For example, are > there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? > > > 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this > document? > > > 6) 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 **) > > > 7) This document contains sourcecode in Section 7.3: > > * Does the sourcecode validate? > * Some sourcecode types (e.g., YANG) require certain references and/or text > in the Security Considerations section. Is this information correct? > * Is the sourcecode type indicated in the XML? > > > 8) This document contains SVG. What tool did you use to make the 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. > > > 9) Because this document updates RFCs 7643 and 7644, please review > the reported errata and confirm whether they have been addressed in this > document or are not relevant: > > * RFC 7643 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc7643) > * RFC 7644 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc7644) > > > 10) 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. > >> On Oct 21, 2025, at 4:50 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> Author(s), >> >> Your document draft-ietf-scim-events-14, 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]
