Sarah, Yes, I'm happy to complete AUTH48 in GitHub.
My userid is aapthorp Best regards Adrian -----Original Message----- From: Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, 20 March 2026 4:21 am To: Michael Douglass <[email protected]>; Adrian Apthorp (DHL Express GHO) <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Document intake questions about <draft-ietf-calext-ical-tasks-17> Hi Mike and Adrian, Mike - Thank you for your reply! Adrian - Regarding: >>>> 8) 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. > > Mine is douglm. I'm happy to take part if others agree Would you like to complete AUTH48 in GitHub? Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Mar 19, 2026, at 1:24 PM, Michael Douglass <[email protected]> wrote: > > In that case I think we are good to go. There are some further responses > below. > > On 3/19/26 11:49, Sarah Tarrant wrote: >> Hi Michael, >> >> Thank you for your reply. Please review the following four items and let me >> know if these suggestions are acceptable. Also, please make sure I didn't >> miss anything. >> >> a) We can update the sourcecode type "bnf" to "abnf", so don't worry about >> updating that on your end. >> >> b) As for the anchors, I don't believe there are any issues on our end. So, >> no change there either. >> >> c) You're right about there not being a type "iCal" or "iCalendar". However, >> media types are still an option: >> https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml. Perhaps we >> could use type "text/calendar" [RFC5545]? >> >> d) For the " ... is replaced by ..." formatting, we would suggest formatting >> both as block quotes (<blockquote>), as that is standard for OLD/NEW >> elements. With your approval, we can make that change on our end. > Please go ahead with these changes - thank you. >> >> Sincerely, >> Sarah Tarrant >> RFC Production Center >> >>> On Mar 18, 2026, at 4:23 PM, Michael Douglass <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> One initial question below at point 5 - sourcecode On 3/17/26 16:01, >>> Sarah Tarrant 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? > All ok. >>>> >>>> >>>> 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, WG style guide, etc.? If so, please provide a pointer to >>>> that information (e.g., "This document's terminology should match >>>> DNS terminology in RFC 9499." or "This document uses the style info >>>> at <https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide>."). >>>> * Is there a general pattern of capitalization or formatting of >>>> terms that editors can follow (e.g., "Field names should have initial >>>> capitalization." >>>> or "Parameter names should be in double quotes." or "<tt/> should >>>> be used for token names." etc.)? > We tried to follow 5545 as regards all those style issues. >>>> >>>> >>>> 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. > Done - no issues >>>> >>>> 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? > No special handling >>>> >>>> >>>> 5) This document contains sourcecode: >>>> >>>> * Does the sourcecode validate? >>>> * Some sourcecode types (e.g., YANG) require certain references >>>> and/or text in the Security Considerations section. Is this information >>>> correct? >>>> * Is the sourcecode type indicated in the XML? (See information >>>> about >>>> types: >>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types.) >>> The source document is written in asciidoc and uses metanorma to process. I >>> set the wrong type for abnf (I used "bnf") - can correct that. >>> However, the asciidoc generates something like this for examples: >>> <sourcecode >>> anchor="_e6e8329f-2f53-d95b-f684-b559638b5f76"><![CDATA[REASON:https >>> ://example.com/reason/delivered-on-time]]></sourcecode> >>> >>> This was generated by the asciidoc >>> [source] >>> ---- >>> REASON:https://example.com/reason/delivered-on-time >>> >>> ---- >>> >>> >>> How should examples be represented in XML? The above is actually iCalendar >>> but there's no type for that. >>> All the sourcecode elements except the following are icalendar, xml or >>> abnf. I do have this: >>> <sourcecode anchor="_eacbea81-341f-ff8c-8998-b0e7d3618e47"><![CDATA[ >>> A "VTODO" calendar component without the "DTSTART" and "DUE" (or >>> "DURATION") properties specifies a to-do that will be associated >>> with each successive calendar date, until it is >>> completed.]]></sourcecode> >>> >>> >>> <t anchor="_b319a19b-d7da-8c18-c509-476f7e6b69fe">is replaced by</t> >>> >>> <sourcecode anchor="_3445301e-5b67-5b5d-2dfd-8d6ef6f7c96d"><![CDATA[ A >>> "VTODO" calendar component without the "DTSTART" and "DUE" >>> properties specifies a to-do that will be associated with each >>> successive calendar date, until it is completed.]]></sourcecode> >>> >>> </section> >>> >>> This is replacement text for 5545 and I guess I'm looking for some >>> sort of preformatted text option. This appears at the end of section >>> 11.1 >>> >>> >>>> >>>> 6) Because this document updates RFC 5545, please review the >>>> reported errata and confirm whether they have been addressed in >>>> this document or are not relevant: >>>> >>>> * RFC 5545 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc5545) > Done >>>> >>>> 7) 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. > Not at this time. >>>> >>>> 8) 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. > Mine is douglm. I'm happy to take part if others agree >>>> >>>> >>>> 9) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while >>>> editing this document? > > No > > Thank you - Mike > >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Mar 17, 2026, at 2:57 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Author(s), >>>>> >>>>> Your document draft-ietf-calext-ical-tasks-17, 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]
