[auth48] Re: Document intake questions about draft-ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert

[Sarah Tarrant <[e-mail]>]

Hi Authors,

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 Jul 21, 2026, at 2:07 AM, [e-mail] 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 receive a 
> reply.  We require a reply, even if you don’t have guidance or don’t feel that you 
> need to make any updates to the document.  After we hear from you, your document 
> will start moving through the queue. You will be able to review and approve our 
> updates during Final Review (formerly AUTH48).
> 
> Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have at 
> [e-mail].
> 
> 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, 
> 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.)?
> 
> 
> 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>.
> 
> 
> 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) This document appears to contain a formal language (or code / code 
> snippets that will be marked with <sourcecode> in this document's 
> XML file). See https://authors.ietf.org/formal-languages.
> 
> * Does it validate?
> 
> * Some formal languages (e.g., YANG) require certain reference entries 
> and/or boilerplate in the Security Considerations section (see the link 
> above for more information).  Please confirm that this document matches 
> the current guidance for the language type.
> 
> * Unless already indicated in a submitted XML file for this document, 
> please let us know what type should be used for the <sourcecode> element 
> for each module/snippet/etc. (See information about <sourcecode> types 
> at https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types.)
> 
> 
> 7) This document is part of Cluster 582:
> https://queue.rfc-editor.org/clusters/582/ 
> 
> * 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, see: 
> https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfc-publication-process#clusters
> 
> * For a list of all current clusters, see: 
> https://queue.rfc-editor.org/clusters/
> 
> 
> 8) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this 
> document?
>