Hi Joe, Thanks for the heads up!
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Feb 26, 2026, at 9:12 AM, Joe Mandel <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]
