Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3864.600.51.1.1\))
From: Sarah Tarrant <starrant@staff.rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <178767370941.10.10752876891050617970@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2026 08:43:33 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2F9EF742-8BDC-4221-AF9C-AE265B5E24F4@staff.rfc-editor.org>
References: <178767370941.10.10752876891050617970@rfc-editor.org>
To: michawe@ifi.uio.no,
 tomh@tomh.org,
 gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk,
 tahiliani.nitk@gmail.com
Message-ID-Hash: QFDYEXRMLU4RXOTM47BWV2OQNQWTRZDT
CC: ietf@tenghardt.net, mbishop@evequefou.be, wit-ads@ietf.org,
 ccwg-chairs@ietf.org, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Precedence: list
Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5Bauth48=5D_Re=3A_Document_intake_questions_about_draft-ietf-ccwg?=
 =?utf-8?q?-ratelimited-increase?=
Archived-At: 
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/NEL_sp7XeDXRVliGoQv0BoOU52U>

Hi Authors,

This is a friendly reminder that we await answers to the questions below =
before continuing with the editing process for this document.=20

Thank you,
Sarah Tarrant
RFC Production Center

> On Aug 25, 2026, at 11:01=E2=80=AFAM, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote:
>=20
> Author(s),=20
>=20
> Congratulations, your document has been successfully added to the RFC =
Editor queue! =20
> The team at the RFC Production Center (RPC) is looking forward to =
working with you=20
> as your document moves forward toward publication. To help reduce =
processing time=20
> and improve editing accuracy, please respond to the questions below. =
Please confer=20
> with your coauthors (or authors of other documents if your document is =
in a=20
> cluster) as necessary prior to taking action in order to streamline =
communication.=20
> If your document has multiple authors, only one author needs to reply =
to this=20
> message.
>=20
> As you read through the rest of this email:
>=20
> * If you need/want to make updates to your document, we encourage you =
to make those=20
> changes and resubmit to the Datatracker. This allows for the easy =
creation of diffs,=20
> which facilitates review by interested parties (e.g., authors, ADs, =
doc shepherds).
>=20
> * If you feel no updates to the document are necessary, please reply =
with any=20
> applicable rationale/comments.
>=20
>=20
> Please note that the RPC team will not work on your document until we =
receive a=20
> reply.  We require a reply, even if you don=E2=80=99t have guidance or =
don=E2=80=99t feel that you=20
> need to make any updates to the document.  After we hear from you, =
your document=20
> will start moving through the queue. You will be able to review and =
approve our=20
> updates during Final Review (formerly AUTH48).
>=20
> Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have at=20
> rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org.
>=20
> Thank you!
> The RPC Team
>=20
> --
>=20
> 1) As there may have been multiple updates made to the document during =
Last Call,=20
> please review the current version of the document:=20
>=20
> * Is the text in the Abstract still accurate?
>=20
> * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments=20
> sections current?
>=20
>=20
> 2) Please share any style information that could help us with editing =
your=20
> document. For example:
>=20
> * Is your document's format or its terminology based on another =
document,=20
> WG style guide, etc.? If so, please provide a pointer to that =
information=20
> (e.g., "This document's terminology should match DNS terminology in=20
> RFC 9499." or "This document uses the style info at=20
> <https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide>.").
>=20
> * Is there a general pattern of capitalization or formatting of terms =
that=20
> editors can follow (e.g., "Field names should have initial =
capitalization."=20
> or  "Parameter names should be in double quotes." or "<tt/> should be =
used=20
> for token names." etc.)?
>=20
>=20
> 3) Please carefully review the entries and their URLs in the
> References section with the following in mind. Note that we will=20
> update as follows unless we hear otherwise at this time:
>=20
> * References to obsoleted RFCs will be updated to point to the current=20=

> RFC on the topic in accordance with Section 4.8.6 of RFC 7322=20
> (RFC Style Guide).
>=20
> * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be=20
> updated to point to the replacement I-D.
>=20
> * References to documents from other organizations that have been=20
> superseded will be updated to their superseding version.
>=20
> Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use=20
> idnits <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits>.
>=20
>=20
> 4) Is there any text that requires special handling? For example:
>=20
> * Are there any sections that were contentious when the document was =
drafted?
>=20
> * Are any sections that need to be removed before publication marked =
as such=20
> (e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942))?
>=20
> * Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be =
edited=20
> the same way?
>=20
>=20
> 5) Because this document updates RFCs 4341, 5681, 9002, 9260, and =
9438,=20
> please review the reported errata and confirm whether they have been=20=

> addressed in this document or are not relevant:
>=20
> * RFC 5681 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc5681)
>=20
> * RFC 9002 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc9002)
>=20
> * RFC 9260 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc9260)
>=20
>=20
> 5)  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=3Dpilot_test_kramdown_rfc.=

>=20
>=20
> 6) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for completing =
Final Review=20
> in GitHub? If so, please let us know and provide all author, AD, =
and/or document=20
> shepherd GitHub usernames. For more information about this experiment, =
see:
> =
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=3Drpc-github-phase-0-pilot=
-test.
>=20
>=20
> 7) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while =
editing this=20
> document?
>=20