Hi Sarah, We’ve posted the updated versions.
Joe > On Feb 17, 2026, at 1:39 PM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Joe, > > Thank you for your reply! > > It appears that for all three, you are updating the acknowledgements? If so, > please submit new versions with the updated acknowledgements -- that way it > is clear where the change originated. > > Sincerely, > Sarah Tarrant > RFC Production Center > >> On Feb 17, 2026, at 1:35 PM, Joe Mandel <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> See answers below. >> >> Joe >> >>> On Feb 12, 2026, at 1:45 PM, Sarah Tarrant <[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? >> >> Yes. >>> * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments >>> sections current? >> >> We are updating the Acknowledgments, however the other sections are accurate. >>> >>> >>> >>> 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). >> >> No. >>> * 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 use camel case for field names. >>> >>> >>> 3) Please carefully review the entries and their URLs in the >>> References section 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 requires special handling? For example: >>> *Are there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? >> >> No. >>> *Are any sections that need to be removed before publication marked as such >>> (e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942)). >> >> On page 1, “About This Document” is marked to be removed. >>> *Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be edited >>> the same way? >> >> No. >>> >>> >>> 5) 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, they are. >>> >>> >>> 6) This document contains sourcecode: >>> >>> * Does the sourcecode validate? >> >> Yes. >>> * 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.) >> >> Yes, it is marked as ASN.1. >>> >>> >>> 7) This document contains SVG. What tool did you use to make the svg? >> >> aasvg was used. >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> 8) This document is part of Cluster 565 >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C565: >>> >>> * 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. >> >> Yes, they should be ordered. 1) Certificate Management over CMS (CMC), 2) >> Certificate Management over CMS (CMC): Transport Protocols, 3) Certificate >> Management over CMS (CMC): Compliance Requirements. >>> * 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, there is not. >>> * 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 >>> >>> >>> 9) Because this document obsoletes RFCs 5272 and 6402, please review >>> the reported errata and confirm whether they have been addressed in this >>> document or are not relevant: >>> >>> * RFC 5272 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc5272) >>> * RFC 6402 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc6402) >>> >> These have been addressed. >>> 10) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing >>> this >>> document? >> >> There is not. >>> >>>> On Feb 12, 2026, at 3:41 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>> Author(s), >>>> >>>> Your document draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5272bis-10, 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 > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
