Hi Panos, No worries! Thank you for the answers.
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Feb 26, 2026, at 1:24 PM, Kampanakis, Panos <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be updated 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 * References to documents from other organizations that have been superseded 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]
