I approve. Apologies for the delay. Deb
On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 12:16 PM Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Pieter, > > Thank you for your reply! > > Once we get Deb's approval, we'll move this to EDIT state. > > Sincerely, > Sarah Tarrant > RFC Production Center > > > On Mar 2, 2026, at 10:57 AM, Pieter Kasselman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Thanks Sarah > > > > Please see responses inline. Let us know if you need additional > > information or clarification. > > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 10:25 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? > >> > > > > An update was made in the -16 draft to reflect my affiliation (full > > company name). > > > >> > >> 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.) > >> > > > > This document is produced in the OAuth working group and applies to > > several OAuth RFCs and should reflect OAuth terminology and > > specifically applies to RFC8628 - > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8628, as well as an OpenID > > Connect specification ("OpenID Connect Client-Initiated Backchannel > > Authentication Flow - Core 1.0" - > > > https://openid.net/specs/openid-client-initiated-backchannel-authentication-core-1_0.html > ) > > > >> > >> 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)). > > > > No > > > >> * 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 > > > >> > >> 6) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing > this > >> document? > >> > > > > No > > > >>> On Feb 24, 2026, at 4:21 PM, [email protected] wrote: > >>> > >>> Author(s), > >>> > >>> Your document draft-ietf-oauth-cross-device-security-15, 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]
