Hiya,
On 26/01/2026 22:59, Sarah Tarrant wrote:
* 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).
I have no planned updates as of now. This is a pretty simple document.
* If you feel no updates to the document are necessary, please reply with any applicable rationale/comments.
Huh? Asking that seems odd. I've replied below to the relevant points and don't know what else you might want/need, nor why.
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?
All good.
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.)
I think that's ok.
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 * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be updated to point to the replacement I-D. * References to documents from other organizations that have been superseded will be updated to their superseding version.
Typical processing is fine here, there are no refs to e.g. expired drafts or similar.
Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use idnits 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 requires special handling? For example: *Are there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? *Are any sections that need to be removed before publication marked as such (e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942)). *Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be edited the same way?
There's a change-control section to remove that is marked as such. Otherwise all's well.
5) This document is part of Cluster 430: www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C430
I really hope draft-ietf-tls-esni is published soon. Not having that done is a barrier to releasing a version of OpenSSL supporting ECH as that project has a policy that the RFC must've been published before they ship a feature like ECH. I know it's not the RPC's fault, but if there's any way people on here can speed that up, that'd be great. (The next OpenSSL release is planned for April so we're getting close to when it'll be too late for that one.)
* To help the reader understand the content of the cluster, is there adocument in the cluster that should be read first? Next?
This document is more-or-less an implementation detail related to draft-ietf-tls-esni (ECH) so that's the primary reference needed to understand this. None of the other references are highly important.
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)?
No.
* 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 6) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this document?
Nope. Cheers, S.
On Jan 26, 2026, at 4:57 PM, [email protected] wrote: Author(s), Your document draft-farrell-tls-pemesni-13, 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
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
