[auth48] Re: [Sandy] Document intake questions about <draft-iab-agews-report-03>

[Sandy Ginoza <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sarah,

We can do it — please ask them to send a formal request to [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> and CC <[e-mail]> so the request is public. Please also ask for a target date. 

Thanks!
Sandy 

> On May 19, 2026, at 6:35 AM, Sarah Tarrant <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Sandy,
> 
> Sending this to you so that I don't misinform them. I've pre-edited and formatted -- it's a markdown/GH document. Ted will need to do ref checks first.
> 
> Can we fast-track this?
> Sarah
> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>> From: Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: Document intake questions about <draft-iab-agews-report-03>
>> Date: May 19, 2026 at 6:20:26 AM CDT
>> To: Sarah Tarrant <[e-mail]>
>> 
>> Hi Sarah, 
>> 
>> What is the procedure for requesting fast tracking of this workshop report's publication? 
>> 
>> Thanks! 
>> Dhruv
>> 
>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2026 at 3:35 PM Sarah Tarrant <[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 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 
>> [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 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. 
>> 
>> 
>> 6) 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.
>> 
>> 
>> 7) 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.
>> 
>> 
>> 8) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this 
>> document? 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Apr 16, 2026, at 9:32 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>> 
>>> Author(s),
>>> 
>>> Your document draft-iab-agews-report-03, 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
>>> 
>> 
>