Hi Sarah, On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 at 22:33, 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).
Once IANA has approved the CoAP Content Formats in Table 3, we will need to compute the resulting CBOR Tags and update Section 10.6.2 accordingly. This is currently marked as an action for the RFC Editor, but it would probably be better if we did it ourselves, since it's not completely trivial. > * If you feel no updates to the document are necessary, please reply with any > applicable rationale/comments. We are not expecting any other updates apart from the one above. > 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? Yes > * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments > sections current? Dionna Glaze is no longer employed by Google. I chatted with her last week, and she told me that she is currently negotiating with her employer to be listed as an author/contributor. Depending on the outcome of these negotiations, she may need to be moved to the Acknowledgements section. Hopefully, we'll only need to update her email address. The rest is OK. > 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.) We borrow terms from RFC9334 (e.g., Attester, Verifier, Relying Party) and RFC 9193 (e.g., Content-Type, Media-Type-Name). We use <tt/> (backticks in markdown) for protocol elements: data items, their attributes and values. Currently, we use "conceptual message" inconsistently, sometimes capitalising it and sometimes not. We would like to use only the lowercase version. No other special typographical convention is used. > 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. All the references look in order. > 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. Both idnits and idnits3 are producing a few false positives. > 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? Yes, phrasing the first (and only) paragraph in Section 4 and all of Section 9.3 has been a bloodbath. > 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this > document? N.A. > 6) This document uses one or more of the following text styles. > Are these elements used consistently? > > * fixed width font (<tt/> or `) Yes, hopefully in a consistent manner - as explained above. > * italics (<em/> or *) No > * bold (<strong/> or **) No > 7) This document contains sourcecode: > > * Does the sourcecode validate? The document's CI validates all the CDDL and the examples. ASN.1 has been validated separately. > * Some sourcecode types (e.g., YANG) require certain references and/or text > in the Security Considerations section. Is this information correct? N.A. > * Is the sourcecode type indicated in the XML? (See information about > types: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types.) N.A. > 8) This document contains SVG. What tool did you use to make the svg? aasvg > 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. Both checks were successful. cheers, thanks! Thomas, Henk, Ned, Dionna, Hannes. > > On Dec 8, 2025, at 3:29 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > Author(s), > > > > Your document draft-ietf-rats-msg-wrap-22, 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]
