Hi Sarah, I've taken the liberty of filling the requested information below. Please let us know if there is anything else that you require from us on this or anything else. Thanks!
Take care. Jim -----Original Message----- From: Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> Sent: March 9, 2026 12:00 PM To: Stefan Kölbl <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Document intake questions about <draft-ietf-pquip-hbs-state-04> 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 -- Thom Wiggers • fluppe2 ------ Stavros Kousidis • crypto4a ----- Jim Goodman • kste --------- Stefan Kölbl • BashiriK ----- Kaveh Bashiri 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]
