Oliver: Section 6 contains an incomplete example. I do not think it should be mareked with a sourcecode type.
Russ > On Jan 8, 2026, at 10:32 AM, Oliver Gasser <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > On 1/8/26 4:16 PM, Sarah Tarrant wrote: >> Hi Oliver, >> Thank you for asking for clarification. >> There are still sourcecode elements in Sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 that >> are marked sourcecode type="csv", and there is a sourcecode element in >> Section 6 that doesn't have a specified type. >> While it's totally fine to not always specify the type, the type "csv" is >> not currently in our list of sourcecode types: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types >> If "csv" is the correct type, please let us know so we can add it to our >> list. Also, please let us know if there is a preferred type for the >> sourcecode in Section 6. > > Yes, "csv" is the correct type. > > @Russ: Should there be a specific type for the source code in Section 6 (the > RPKI signature example)? > > Cheers, > > Oliver > >> Sincerely, >> Sarah Tarrant >> RFC Production Center >>> On Jan 8, 2026, at 9:02 AM, Oliver Gasser <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> @Sarah: Does Russ's response answer your remaining questions? I don't think >>> we have any other source code in the document. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Oliver >>> >>> On 1/7/26 6:54 PM, Russ Housley wrote: >>>> Sarah: >>>> I compiled the ASN.1 module with no errors. >>>> Russ >>>>> On Jan 7, 2026, at 12:41 PM, Sarah Tarrant >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Oliver, >>>>> >>>>> My apologies for not including this in the intake form, but I have some >>>>> additional questions about the sourcecode in the XML file: >>>>> >>>>> * 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? (See information about >>>>> types: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types.) >>>>> Note that one sourcecode element in the XML does not have a specified >>>>> type. >>>>> * Regarding the sourcecode types, "csv" is not included in the list of >>>>> acceptable types. Are you requesting that we ask for it to be added to >>>>> the list? >>>>> >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> Sarah Tarrant >>>>> RFC Production Center >>>>> >>>>>> On Jan 7, 2026, at 8:21 AM, Sarah Tarrant >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Oliver, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you for your reply! >>>>>> >>>>>> Sincerely, >>>>>> Sarah Tarrant >>>>>> RFC Production Center >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jan 7, 2026, at 5:51 AM, Oliver Gasser <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Sarah, all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry for the delay, I'm back from my time off now. Responses to >>>>>>> questions are inline. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Oliver >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 12/22/25 6:10 PM, Sarah Tarrant wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi Randy, >>>>>>>> Sending in response to your question: >>>>>>>>> hmmm. both russ and i said ok to the iana reg change. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> so could you whack me with a clue bat with exactly what you await? >>>>>>>> We are looking out for the authors' responses to the Intake Form, >>>>>>>> included here: >>>>>>>>> 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). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This document is related to RFC8805 and RFC9632. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * 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 write the term "prefixlen" in all lower case throughout the >>>>>>> document, with the exception of the "Prefixlen" keyword as part of the >>>>>>> "remarks:" field. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while >>>>>>>>> editing this >>>>>>>>> document? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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 **) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, I hope 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sincerely, >>>>>>>> Sarah Tarrant >>>>>>>> RFC Production Center >>>>>>>>> On Dec 18, 2025, at 11:37 AM, Randy Bush <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> mornin'sarah, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Now we just need answers to the Intake Form before proceeding with >>>>>>>>>> this draft. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> i am leaving that to the primary author, oliver. i just stuck my nose >>>>>>>>> in to smooth a process gl!tch. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> randy >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
