[auth48] Re: Document intake questions about draft-ietf-oauth-status-list

[Sarah Tarrant <[e-mail]>]

Hi Christian,

Thank you for the updated markdown. I've sent mail to. Deb for AD approval, and then we should be all squared away.

Sincerely,
Sarah Tarrant
RFC Production Center

> On Jun 21, 2026, at 11:48 AM, Christian Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Sarah,
> 
> I’ve release a new version and the markdown in the GitHub repository now contains all examples (doesn’t use includes anymore).
> This should be good to go from our side.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Christian
> 
>> On 15. Jun 2026, at 22:15, Sarah Tarrant <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Christian,
>> 
>> I think I identified a few issues with the markdown that might help with idnits. If it doesn't, let the record show that I only hoped it would.
>> 
>> Let me know if I can further assist.
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> Sarah Tarrant
>> RFC Production Center
>> 
>>> On Jun 15, 2026, at 2:03 PM, Christian Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Sarah,
>>> 
>>> We have a few code blocks that don’t really fit any of those “normal” types since they are representations meant mainly for better understanding and not “normal” encodings. I’ve chosen the normal/fitting identifiers for everything that fits (cddl, asn.1, json, etc.) and type identifiers that roughly fit for the few weird ones (like the jwt header + payload example), but happy to adjust if anyone has better ideas for those.
>>> 
>>> I’ve removed all includes and moved the examples into the core markdown file. PR is currently here: https://github.com/oauth-wg/draft-ietf-oauth-status-list/pull/357 , but I am getting some weird nits like wrong indentation in the sections if I run the generated txt through idnits which don’t really seem to make sense to me.
>>> Could I kindly ask you to take a look at the file in that branch (https://raw.githubusercontent.com/oauth-wg/draft-ietf-oauth-status-list/refs/heads/editorial-fixes-kramdown/draft-ietf-oauth-status-list.md) and comment if that looks good to you/your tooling?
>>> 
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Christian
>>> 
>>>> On 15. Jun 2026, at 15:16, Sarah Tarrant <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Christian,
>>>> 
>>>> Very good!
>>>> 
>>>> For the code blocks, if you need a type, check out our list here: https://rpc-wiki.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types. Also, anything on IANA's media types list is also acceptable: https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml.
>>>> 
>>>> As for the TBDs, please hold off on adding those. We can add those later.
>>>> 
>>>> I'll be on the lookout for a new version and a new markdown file!
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> Sarah Tarrant
>>>> RFC Production Center
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jun 15, 2026, at 7:08 AM, Christian Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Sarah,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am working on a PR that addresses these points - here are a few comments:
>>>>> 
>>>>> B) I believe those are the inline code blocks - I didn’t associate those with your question, sorry! Those are intentional to signal parameters/claims in the text - basically every time a concrete parameter etc. is referenced.
>>>>> 
>>>>> C) Sorry, I only thought about source code, not code blocks with JSON/CBOR etc. We have quite a few code blocks that aren’t any of the “normal" formal types - for example annotated cbor or JWT in <header>.<payload> annotation. We weren’t really sure what code-block type to use for those, so we left it empty, but I found custom types in other RFCs that I will re-use.
>>>>> 
>>>>> D) I’ll move all examples into the core markdown file and remove the includes.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We should be able to publish a new version with those changes this week.
>>>>> Since we also got a mail regarding the pending IANA registrations (that we will answer in a few days) and had a few “TBD”s in the text, should I also update these TBDs to the numbers that were created by IANA now?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Christian
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 11. Jun 2026, at 16:25, Sarah Tarrant <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Christian, Paul, and Tobias,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thank you for your reply! I do have some followup questions/comments:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A) Regarding 3), yes, please! If you want to fix up those lists, please submit a new version to the datatracker. Once you do that, be sure to send me the updated self-contained markdown file as well.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> B) Regarding 5), please take another look at the submitted XML file as I found <tt> throughout (e.g., bits, StatusList, lst, aggregation_ur, typ, etc.). If this was done unintentionally, please submit a corrected version that aligns with your intentions. However, if this was intentional, please let us know what patten you followed so that we can help keep the usage consistent in the document.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> C) Regarding 6), I'm seeing sourcecode elements in the XML, particularly json, cddl, and (possibly) asn.1. This can get blurred between the markdown and the xml files, as markdown doesn't always have a "type" selected. If it is helpful to think of these elements as "formal language", see: https://authors.ietf.org/formal-languages. We just want to verify that what is in the submitted XML is correct and intentional, so please let us know that.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> D) Regarding 7), I'm not able to parse the markdown file at: https://github.com/oauth-wg/draft-ietf-oauth-status-list/blob/main/draft-ietf-oauth-status-list.md?plain=1. It looks like a couple {::include elements were used; so, if you would like to proceed with markdown, we would need a self-contained file.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>> Sarah Tarrant
>>>>>> RFC Production Center
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Jun 11, 2026, at 2:07 AM, Christian Bormann <chris.bormann=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dear RPC team,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks, below are the answers to the questions:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Abstract is still accurate and Author’s names & email addresses are current.
>>>>>>> Acknowledgements should be current as well.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 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.)?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Everything introduced in terminology is capitalised.
>>>>>>> In terms of terminology, RFC9901 (SD-JWT) is an important reference for the issuer-holder-verifier model that we’ve been following for this draft.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We found a few smaller issues like sd-jwt vc having published a new version (and I’d assume they will publish another version before IETF Vienna). There also seem to be some minor problems with the txt rendering of lists in the IANA section that I will try to resolve.
>>>>>>> Should we release a new version with those fixes?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Document history is present that is marked as “to be removed from the final specification”
>>>>>>> There are some TBD placeholders for IANA registration which need to be adjusted once identifiers are assigned
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 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 **)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> No
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 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.)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> No
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If it doesn’t delay publication, sure! Our repository containing the markdown is at https://github.com/oauth-wg/draft-ietf-oauth-status-list It is not a fully self-contained file right now though with the examples in separate files.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 8) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for completing Final Review 
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Same as 7) 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://github.com/oauth-wg/draft-ietf-oauth-status-list
>>>>>>> Author’s GitHub handles: c2bo, paulbastian, tplooker
>>>>>>> AD: debcooley
>>>>>>> Document Shepherd: rifaat-ietf
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> (Deb, Rifaat please check, but these seem to be correct?)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 9) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this 
>>>>>>>> document?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Nothing we are aware of
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Paul, Tobias, Christian
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 4. Jun 2026, at 23:30, [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>. 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) 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.)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 8) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for completing Final Review 
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 9) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this 
>>>>>>>> document?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>