Hi Phil, Received!
Thank you, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Oct 28, 2025, at 11:47 AM, Phillip Hunt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > Answers in line. > > Phil > [email protected] > > >> On Oct 28, 2025, at 6:36 AM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hello all, >> >> I've updated our files to version -15. >> >> We are still awaiting answers to the intake form -- so I've pasted them here >> for ease of access. >> >> Thank you, >> Sarah Tarrant >> RFC Production Center >> >> ------ >> 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? > > <PH> 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). >> * 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.) > > <PH> In draft 15, most <tt/> values where swapped out for quotations to keep > the txt version of the draft clear. > > The draft indicates where there is case-sensitivity for URNs, values, or > parameters. > > The draft builds on principles established in RFC7643, RFC7644, RFC8417. > > In particular, per RFC8417, events are not to be perceived as commands issued > by a publisher to a receiver. Rather they are intended to be informative. > It is up to the receiver to decide how to use the > information provided based on local context. This is explained, but this > type of inversion of control may not be obvious enough to the reader. In > this sense, with the exception of SCIM Asynchronous requests, SCIM Events are > just intended to be event type definitions only. >> >> >> 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. > > <PH> The draft should be current for references. The idnits tool reports > only inconsequential line length issues on some figures. >> >> >> 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? > > <PH> I don’t think there is anything left. We ended up cutting out a section > on “signals” which was seen to be duplicative with Open Id Foundation Shared > Signals specs. I think we have any last remnants removed. >> >> >> 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this >> document? > > <PH> The appendix contains non-normative explanation about how various events > can be used to accomplish a couple forms of replication. This is offered to > demonstrate events are used in practice in an > inversion of control scenario. >> >> >> >> >> 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 **) >> > <PH> These elements were avoided to keep the normative .txt version clearer. > Draft 15 removed all but one <tt/>, italics and bold are not used. >> >> 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? > > <PH> I am not aware of any source code. We just have JSON structures. > Section 7.3 is the IANA Events URI Sub-registry. >> >> >> 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. > > <PH> AFAIK, the SVG diagrams have been removed or can be removed in favor of > the supplied ASCII art. >> >> >> 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) >> > <PH> I am in the process now. However these errata won’t be relevant because > SCIM Events represents new functionality. The only intersection is SCIM > Events often represent SCIM create, update, patch, delete messages in SET > form. > >> 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. > <PH> The current drafts are not based on kramdown format so we should > probably stick with RFCXML. > >> >>> On Oct 23, 2025, at 11:05 AM, Deb Cooley <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> yell at me if you need me to do it (and send me the .xml file). We are in >>> the I-D cutoff time. >>> >>> Deb >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 11:33 AM Phillip Hunt <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> Hi Sarah, >>> >>> I can make the changes. Just submit 15 as normal then? >>> >>> Phil >>> >>>> On Oct 23, 2025, at 7:13 AM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Phil, >>>> >>>> You are correct about the <tt> tags not having any effect on the .txt >>>> output. Perhaps using quotation marks in place of or in addition to the >>>> <tt> tags would help with the .txt output? That would also affect the >>>> .html and .pdf outputs, but then all outputs could be consistent. >>>> >>>> If you do decide to make these changes, we suggest submitting a new >>>> version to the datatracker with those updates so that it is clear where >>>> that change originated. >>>> >>>> Sincerely, >>>> Sarah Tarrant >>>> RFC Production Center >>>> >>>>> On Oct 21, 2025, at 5:07 PM, Phillip Hunt <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 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]
