Hi Sarah,
sorry for the slow response and for your patience. My comments are inline:
Am 30.03.2026 um 17:21 schrieb Sarah Tarrant:
Hi Authors,
Due to the lack of response, we will be moving this document to EDIT state at
this time. Please note that some of the questions in the intake form may be
repeated during AUTH48.
Sincerely,
Sarah Tarrant
RFC Production Center
On Mar 24, 2026, at 9:16 AM, Sarah Tarrant<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Author(s),
This is another friendly reminder that we await answers to the questions below
before continuing with the editing process for this document.
Thank you,
Sarah Tarrant
RFC Production Center
On Mar 16, 2026, at 8:38 AM, Sarah Tarrant<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Author(s),
This is a friendly reminder that we await answers to the questions below before
continuing with the editing process for this document.
Thank you,
Sarah Tarrant
RFC Production Center
On Mar 9, 2026, at 2:35 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?
The text in the abstract is still correct. The Contributors and
Acknowledgments sections are also still correct.
My author information has changed to:
---
Hannes Tschofenig
University of the Bundeswehr Munich
Werner-Heisenberg-Weg 39
85577 Neubiberg
Germany
Email: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
---
For the front page you can abbreviate the long university name to "UniBw
M.".
I believe the author information of my co-authors is still correct.
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.)?
The document re-uses terminology from three different sources, namely
from the
- TEEP architecture specification: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9397
- RATS architecture specification: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9334
- SUIT manifest specification:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-suit-manifest-34
We tried to capitalize the TEEP terms, such as TEEP Agent and Trusted
Applications, in this document.
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?
There are no sections that require any special processing.
There are a number of SUIT drafts listed in the normative reference
section and those need to be completed first.
There are also a few drafts in the informative reference section and
those are correct.
There are no specifications that have been replaced by other documents.
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 **)
I thought we had consistently used those styles but when I just
double-checked I noticed that we did not. :-(
6) 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 specification contains CDDL. The full CDDL description in Appendix C
is described as
<figure><sourcecode type="CDDL">
Snippets of this CDDL are also found in the body of the document but
there they are marked as "cddl-xxx" whereby xxx indicates the type of
message being shown.
The CDDL has been validated.
7) This document contains SVG. What tool did you use to make the svg?
The RPC cannot update SVG diagrams, so please ensure that:
* the SVG figures match the ASCII art used in the text output as closely as
possible, and
* the figures fit on the pages of the PDF output.
The SVG diagrams have been produced automatically from the ASCII
drawings by using the Markdown-Figure-Tag "~~~~ aasvg".
8) This document is part of Cluster 480:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C480
* To help the reader understand the content of the cluster, is there a
document in the cluster that should be read first? Next? If so, please provide
the order and we will provide RFC numbers for the documents accordingly.
If order is not important, please let us know.
* Is there any text that has been repeated within the cluster document that
should be edited in the same way (for instance, parallel introductory text or
Security Considerations)?
* For more information about clusters,
seehttps://www.rfc-editor.org/about/clusters/
* For a list of all current clusters,
see:http://www.rfc-editor.org/all_clusters.php
The "Trusted Execution Environment Provisioning (TEEP) Protocol"
document should be read first and then the "HTTP Transport for Trusted
Execution Environment Provisioning: Agent Initiated Communication". The
content of both documents is well aligned.
It might help to read the already published TEEP Architecture, see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9397, before reading the protocol
specification.
9) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this
document?
No, not that I can think of.
Ciao
Hannes
On Mar 9, 2026, at 2:28 PM,[email protected] wrote:
Author(s),
Your document draft-ietf-teep-protocol-26, 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]
