Hi Jean, While I like the idea, I have concerns about the name near-collision of AUTH and AUTH48 as the state names are really similar. Could another name be chosen for the new “AUTH” state ? Could simply be “INTAKE” 😉
Regards, -éric From: A. Jean Mahoney <[email protected]> Date: Monday, 7 July 2025 at 21:59 To: RFC Interest <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Intake form: an experimental RPC process for docs entering the RFC Editor Queue Hi all, As mentioned in a recent blog post [1] and during the RPC community calls [2] [3], the RFC Production Center has been looking at ways to streamline our processes and improve queue times. We have drafted an intake form that asks authors a few questions about their documents. The answers to these questions will help us as we copy edit the documents. Please see below for the initial intake form. The RPC will send these questions in an email message to the authors when their document enters the RFC Editor Queue. The message's CC list will basically be the same as the initial AUTH48 message (but without auth48archive) and will include the ADs, chairs, doc shepherd, and the RFC Editor mailing list. The RPC will wait for a response from the authors before we start editing the document. That is, the document will remain in AUTH state until we hear back. When we receive an answer, we will move the document into EDIT state. The authors will be able to review our updates during AUTH48. We expect that the authors will answer the intake form quickly as the document is still fresh in their minds. If we don't receive an answer within a week, though, we will send a reminder, and we will escalate to a stream approver after two weeks by adding a flag in the subject line (e.g., [AD]), similar to the AUTH48 process. However, if we have not heard from the authors after a month, we will move the document into EDIT state, and the document will move through the queue as usual. As this is an experiment, we will be assessing impact by measuring the time in AUTH state, whether we needed to escalate to a stream approver, the percent of facilitative answers, whether we received a revised I-D, and whether that revised I-D needed approval. Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns. We plan to send an intake form for every document that enters the queue starting July 14. Best regards, Jean Mahoney RFC Production Center [1] https://www.ietf.org/blog/rpc-retreat-2025/ [2] https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-interim-2025-rpc-01-rpc?view#Process-efficiency [3] https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-interim-2025-rpc-04-rpc?view#Project-Updates ------------------------------------------------------ Subject: Author action required for draft-foo-00 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 is still accurate? * Are the References, Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments sections 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.) 3) Is there any text that should be handled extra cautiously? For example, are there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? 4) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this document? Questions to be sent as needed: X) This document uses the following text style: <tt/>, <em/>, and/or <strong/> Are these elements used consistently? See the full list of use available at https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/draft...-textstyle.txt X) This document contains sourcecode: * 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 sourcecode types). X) This document contains SVG. 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. X) This document is part of Cluster XXX. * 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.
_______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
