Answers inline... On Fri, Jan 9, 2026 at 4:17 PM <[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? > > The text of the Abstract is still accurate, and the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments sections are 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.) > > This document's formatting and terminology should be consistent with I-D.draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting and I-D.draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting, and in fact this document should be the reference document for formatting and terminology for this set of three documents. > 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. > > The References section has been reviewed and no issues are found. > 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? > > Section 7.4 was likely the most contentious section, and so should be handled extra cautiously. > > 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing > this > document? > > There are two embarrassing spelling errors/typos ("reportging" and "Alignmeent") in section 8. The authors apologize for these errors. > > 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 **) > The elements are used consistently. > > > 7) This document is part of Cluster 539: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C539 > > * To help the reader understand the content of the cluster, is there a > document in the cluster that should be read first? Next? If so, please > provide > the order and we will provide RFC numbers for the documents accordingly. > If order is not important, please let us know. > * Is there any text that has been repeated within the cluster document that > should be edited in the same way (for instance, parallel introductory text > or > Security Considerations)? > * For more information about clusters, see > https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/clusters/ > * For a list of all current clusters, see: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/all_clusters.php > > This document should be read first among the three documents in C539. As for the other two, while the order of reading them is not important, DMARC Aggregate Reporting is much more widely implemented than DMARC Failure Reporting, and so it makes sense to place I-D.draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting before I-D.draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting, > > 8) Because this document obsoletes RFCs 7489 and 9091, please review > the reported errata and confirm whether they have been addressed in this > document or are not relevant: > > * RFC 7489 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc7489) > > Section C.9 discusses all RFC 7489 Errata. > > 9) 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. > 10) 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 > . > > Yes -- Todd
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
