Hi Nimrod, I've gotten Paul's approval for the abstract update. I'm seeing a repetition of "Section 3". Would it be acceptable to you for the RPC to update to the following:
Current: ...Section 5.3, Section 5.2, Section 5.3, Section 5.4, and Section 5.5... Perhaps: ...Sections 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5... That would save you another version update. Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Jan 12, 2026, at 3:02 PM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Nimrod, > > Thanks for the heads-up! I'm working on getting AD approval and should be > able to move this from AUTH to EDIT soon. > > Sincerely, > Sarah Tarrant > RFC Production Center > >> On Jan 12, 2026, at 12:13 PM, Nimrod Aviram <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Sarah, >> >> Sure thing, uploaded version 08. >> Please find attached. >> >> thanks, best wishes, >> Nimrod >> >> >> On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 at 22:32, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> Hi Nimrod, >> >> Thank you for your reply. Regarding the typos that you mentioned, could you >> submit a new version to the datatracker so that it is clear where those >> changes originated? >> >> The markdown file you attached works perfectly, so once you submit the new >> version to datatracker, could you also respond to this thread with the >> updated markdown? >> >> Sincerely, >> Sarah Tarrant >> RFC Production Center >> >>> On Jan 8, 2026, at 10:20 AM, Nimrod Aviram <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Sarah and RPC Team, thanks for your work! >>> >>> Please see my answers inline. >>> >>> best wishes, >>> Nimrod >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>> From: Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> >>> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2026 at 00:50 >>> Subject: Document intake questions about >>> <draft-ietf-tls-deprecate-obsolete-kex-07> >>> To: <[email protected]> >>> Cc: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, >>> <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, >>> <[email protected]> >>> >>> >>> 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? >>> We reviewed the current version. >>> The Abstract is accurate and the Authors’ Addresses / Acknowledgments are >>> current. >>> We did notice a few minor typos in the Abstract; we are happy to address >>> these during AUTH48. >>> (We also have a PR to the document repo reflecting the required edits: >>> https://github.com/tlswg/draft-deprecate-obsolete-kex/pull/27 >>> >>> 2) Please share any style information that could help us with editing your >>> document. >>> No specific guidance, thanks. >>> >>> 3) Please review the entries in the References section carefully with >>> the following in mind. >>> Done, thanks. >>> >>> 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? >>> None, thanks. >>> >>> 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing >>> this >>> document? >>> No, thanks. >>> >>> 6) This document is part of Cluster 430: >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C430 >>> >>> * 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. >>> No, this document is stand-alone. >>> >>> 7) Because this document updates RFCs 4162, 4279, 4346, 4785, 5246, 5288, >>> 5289, >>> 5469, 5487, 5932, 6209, 6347, 6367, 6655, 7905, 8422, and 9325, please >>> review >>> the reported errata and confirm whether they have been addressed in this >>> document or are not relevant: >>> >>> * RFC 4346 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc4346) >>> * RFC 5246 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc5246) >>> * RFC 5288 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc5288) >>> * RFC 6347 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc6347) >>> * RFC 6367 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc6367) >>> * RFC 6655 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc6655) >>> * RFC 7905 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc7905) >>> * RFC 8422 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc8422) >>> >>> All are not relevant, thanks. >>> >>> >>> 8) 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. >>> Yes, please find attached. >>> >>> 9) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for completing >>> AUTH48 in >>> GitHub? >>> Yes, thanks. >>> >>> >>>> On Jan 6, 2026, at 4:35 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>> Author(s), >>>> >>>> Your document draft-ietf-tls-deprecate-obsolete-kex-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 >>>> >>> >>> <draft-ietf-tls-deprecate-obsolete-kex.md> >> >> <draft-ietf-tls-deprecate-obsolete-kex(1).md> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
