Hi Sarah, Sorry, I've been on the road. Yes, it is!
Cheers, > On 14 Nov 2025, at 7:52 am, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > This is just a friendly reminder that we are awaiting the self-contained > markdown file. > > Is this the correct repo? > https://github.com/intarchboard/draft-iab-ai-control-report/blob/main/draft-iab-ai-control-report.md > > Thank you, > Sarah Tarrant > RFC Production Center > >> On Nov 10, 2025, at 9:41 AM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Mark, >> >> Thank you for your reply! >> >> For the kramdown experiment, could you send along a copy of the >> self-contained markdown file? That way we can be sure we got the correct >> version. >> >> Sincerely, >> Sarah Tarrant >> RFC Production Center >> >>> On Nov 6, 2025, at 2:05 PM, Mark Nottingham <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> Responses below. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> >>>> On 4 Nov 2025, at 8:20 am, 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? >>> >>> 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.) >>> >>> N/A >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> Should be OK. >>> >>>> 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? >>> >>> No. >>> >>>> 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing >>>> this >>>> document? >>> >>> Don't think so. >>> >>>> 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 **) >>> >>> Think so... >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> Sure. >>> >>>> 8) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for completing >>>> AUTH48 in >>>> GitHub? If so, please let us know. For more information about this >>>> experiment, >>>> see: >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=rpc-github-phase-0-pilot-test. >>> >>> No thank you. >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> On Nov 4, 2025, at 8:17 AM, [email protected] wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Author(s), >>>>> >>>>> Your document draft-iab-ai-control-report-02, 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 >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ >> >> > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
