Hi Stefan,
Thank you for your reply!
One followup question: Regarding the authors' usernames, could you add their
name with their usernames? We're still learning everyone's usernames and aren't
sure which names to match with which usernames.
• thomwiggers
• fluppe2
• crypto4a
• kste
• BashiriK
Sincerely,
Sarah Tarrant
RFC Production Center
> On Mar 9, 2026, at 10:06 AM, Stefan Kölbl <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Sarah,
>
> Thank you for reaching out. Here are the answers to your questions:
>
> 1) As there may have been multiple updates made to the document during Last
> Call,
> please review the current version of the document:
> •
> The text in the Abstract is still accurate.
> • Author information and addresses are correct.
> 2) Please share any style information that could help us with editing your
> document. For example:
> •
> Terminology: The document’s terminology is primarily based on the
> specifications for Stateful HBS: RFC 8391 (XMSS), RFC 8554 (LMS/HSS), and
> NIST SP 800-208.
> • References: The reference to CNSA 2.0 should be updated to link to
> https://media.defense.gov/2025/May/30/2003728741/-1/-1/0/CSA_CNSA_2.0_ALGORITHMS.PDF
> and have a 30 May 2025 date.
> • Capitalization: "Stateful HBS" is used as the standard acronym for the
> signature schemes.
> • Formatting: Defined terms are formatted in italics e.g. *state* or _state
> management_. In definition lists, these are formatted in bold followed by a
> colon, e.g. Section 2 *private_key*.
> 3) No issues have been identified.
> 4) No contentious sections or special handling required. Only the "About this
> document" section needs removal before publication.
> 5) This document uses one or more of the following text styles. Are these
> elements used consistently?
>
> There are currently some inconsistencies:
> •
> Some terms (like _stateless_, *state*) are formatted in italics in the text,
> but this formatting is only applied once.
> • key import/key export are formatted in italics on further use, while other
> terms are not.
>
> 6) Yes, we would like to participate in the kramdown-rfc pilot.
> 7) Yes, we would like to participate in the GitHub pilot. The authors' GitHub
> usernames are: thomwiggers, fluppe2, crypto4a, kste, BashiriK
> 8) Nothing else for the RPC to be aware of.
>
> Kind regards,
> Stefan
>
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 11:12 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?
> * 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) 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 **)
>
>
> 6) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for editing in
> kramdown-rfc?
> If so, please let us know and provide a self-contained kramdown-rfc file. For
> more
> information about this experiment, see:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc.
>
>
> 7) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for completing AUTH48
> in
> GitHub? If so, please let us know and provide all author, AD, and/or document
> shepherd GitHub usernames. For more information about this experiment, see:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=rpc-github-phase-0-pilot-test.
>
>
> 8) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this
> document?
>
> > On Mar 3, 2026, at 4:09 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > Author(s),
> >
> > Your document draft-ietf-pquip-hbs-state-04, 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]
