Ah, sorry, here they are > 1) As there may have been multiple updates made to the document during Last > Call, please review the current version of the document:
Yes, both only editorial, nothing that changes the draft at WGLC. > * Is the text in the Abstract still accurate? Yes > * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments sections > current? Yes. > > > 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.) Nothing special. The XML in the document reflects the style format. > > 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 * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be updated 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 * References to documents from other organizations that have been superseded 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. That is fine, thank you > 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 was some contention regarding standardizing P256 and P384, the status of the algorithms in the IANA registry and the draft being Standards track or Information. Since then, we addressed these concerns and the draft reflects what the WG wants. Nothing else that needs to be removed or not. > 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this > document? Nothing additional. -----Original Message----- From: Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2026 1:59 PM To: Kampanakis, Panos <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; Hansen, Torben <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Document intake questions about <draft-ietf-sshm-mlkem-hybrid-kex-09> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Panos, Thank you for the heads up! Could you also answer the intake questions so I can move the draft from AUTH to EDIT state? Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Feb 26, 2026, at 12:22 PM, Kampanakis, Panos <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > I just uploaded version -10 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-sshm-mlkem-hybrid-kex-10 > which fixes one small nit from -09. > > It is ready for the queue now! > > Thank you, > Panos > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 5:16 PM > To: Kampanakis, Panos <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > Hansen, Torben <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Document intake questions about > <draft-ietf-sshm-mlkem-hybrid-kex-09> > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click > links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the > content is safe. > > > > 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? > > > 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) 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? > * 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? > > > 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this > document? > >> On Feb 24, 2026, at 4:13 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> Author(s), >> >> Your document draft-ietf-sshm-mlkem-hybrid-kex-09, 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]
