Hi David, Thank you for your reply!
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Dec 3, 2025, at 4:48 PM, David Benjamin <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks! Responses inline. > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 5:35 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. > > No updates from my end. > 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? > > Yup. > 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). > > Terminology should generally match RFC 8446 (TLS) and RFC 8017. > * 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, based on the styling from the other documents it references. The > document references and/or defines: > > * An algorithm from RFC 8017, which looks like RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 > * TLS messages, which look like CertificateRequest > * TLS extensions, which look like signature_algorithms > * TLS SignatureScheme values, which look like rsa_pkcs1_sha256_legacy > > I used <tt> for the lowercase_with_underscore ones. Other documents I've seen > sometimes use <tt> for such things, sometimes leave it undecorated, and > sometimes use quotation marks (RFC 8446). I don't think it strongly matters, > but <tt> looked nicest to my eyes. > > I didn't use <tt> for the UpperCamelCase identifiers because I've not seen > another TLS document do that. Those seem clear enough undecorated, while > lowercase_with_underscores can sometimes be ambiguous with normal words. > 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. > > Ack. I'm not aware of any here that would need to be changed, unless > I-D.ietf-tls-hybrid-design becomes an RFC before this one does. > 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? > > Nothing comes to mind. > 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this > document? > > Nothing comes to mind. > 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 **) > > They are as far as I know! Let me know if you catch something amiss. > > On Dec 3, 2025, at 4:31 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > Author(s), > > > > Your document draft-ietf-tls-tls13-pkcs1-07, 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]
