Return-Path: X-Original-To: auth48archive@mail2.ietf.org Delivered-To: auth48archive@mail2.ietf.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AED95FDAE458 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2026 14:55:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1780955751; bh=pPPLTCS1geMkGg6FuTdT9yAp10EqEhD5gTEAy6v3WHE=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc; b=aiZ8K2FkRZ4N9Ze52hdxqfQeAGY4TK5al54szMnKzVyHPnXhz/HPYNzHWxmNHXvBh cIQbnrRlsYtHlnX535W2XoIadd/hsga/0bF1llpVyXaCOwe5cEfBWuttTri/kiHqsF gY3u+j+Qdjhq0xuw0LAKxQOLQNDUsTRHDaoyshrM= X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rCrfWczD_dp6 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2026 14:55:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw1-x112e.google.com (mail-yw1-x112e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::112e]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34F5BFDAE3D3 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2026 14:55:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yw1-x112e.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-7ddd3d67084so53529127b3.3 for ; Mon, 08 Jun 2026 14:55:36 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1780955735; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; b=RQ8Vok1fmqmpwcSdnW6or8xnUx+xbVzdYNZ0ucl1NUCK4ZXl2JO2FSWFFCfzw6zajK ODElWY0U+UjHtMY1nXgEdGueShJGjARKCLUW2KZL1qYsJXQ9LdUoVYTyIPOJ98iZk+MK cNs7MO/QpDvjduMl5etoRbqOJjqRiQT0i8bYD0NZEkIA556FpK2MemC07gvR2Vzcmnj6 C9tePqCXdrbjIacMJk0moyj8MPgYSQLsP4BBLR5a/Inn4yAEBG42EjQ1QLTpluTug4aw Qf0Eg/q3OTob7uGMGihz+xj7iokDZQTOu4HjIZS2vOwuVENhXimT5EFenJfed3N3JLc1 R1rA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:dkim-signature; bh=TChYwO6oj5ocMZv88fahnl+v+6XhzrnHqgX2wDBOjMY=; fh=Tg3msUn+QpiArKK98aCFpy8v8WVbo/R7aEBDm3qnNRc=; b=CJGKHOONU46ZcIMDtnsH4ZD5MP8wtnF1ZK5EtEbAARqp4ppeqNnQawyJO5fioOyMFD Ax84Pdv+cSuk65Gsl3xzB9+ihQJeXg1K+rjybsV+FaFg2q5GfRjJ4vstyh8xNshuIb6G OnBWNCO33+Kq/8lkRkfpq0FyWv99JlQxosdHQYAW+dCuphlDzlHbzK3qM6cD0EbOQk2c s2txicz6pIJLnfNLWKCOkFBtCP4Qbt2tEthT0B3txiP81PkqYekew82dtBXoW0lGl5Z4 GQ1+Mpgo9LEMHzyCoIrhTgy+MxYdp5aKRRta1ntg4PqwuNuqHbwprFJ+GiP27btqSevU W40w==; darn=rfc-editor.org ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20251104; t=1780955735; x=1781560535; darn=rfc-editor.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=TChYwO6oj5ocMZv88fahnl+v+6XhzrnHqgX2wDBOjMY=; b=DXUgp9B6dgzuZMyCQfPKq9YgNJe6S8+2HO06K2YMBaZhqdhiAJFaPYOsOSfvBZp5fG JPfsAE4aM+w9Vd4b1Eg82I+SFZ36ixwfaMVbK4OuqIFL1v86WYnuTrMJ7w85S6hYjyLq uGlCqEmvK2PWcheU9Hd/0G1MpNdRXXt08dlrTj3l8JeMBO5ZY/p5tKYjykQtCdytfYRc iP2LzTcYcBTeV348/UzifeKgdLxBw45RzWogHMsfThDKBoXnc3y4WLlPvphUoH8mkHj0 3PMLSTZfRDrGpnmvTOGuotziF8HchK7779p2cUC+iUV93J4NMA3B2vaFoELwuQphmgLX +KoA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1780955735; x=1781560535; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=TChYwO6oj5ocMZv88fahnl+v+6XhzrnHqgX2wDBOjMY=; b=aFBXSUO4f+mSPBi+Q13Wp7sal4IxexME+czKNxjmTrUo+oIunm67sFFskbzAAxwkzK BeIoDa9CDMPewLK8aar7vhJS+op3o7nUJTJTrsCN9mlT+IH57hEIAwtfhnVfjGmP0LQL amaQZtq95TXYzxtV8PU/qNl9aa7fS1rlhh4wIGEbBTAxw9EdcBqRaoiJVeK69TfC8qy4 MdVCvVlGT4bHK1XAMK9CmB/lxa0KzHUkoLV0ok+Mlfn7BO2fz53PU3uHQbR7PvGoO6dL s6kGWylGcu6sJMyfIbNZaUIHxXz5oBSjqEDARuF8ZDEHAQCoCQjkPKe3CXfVPxhCyQ3Z Q2zw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AFNElJ+6knyHSZ57EUWcdbjv49vbw/AUOSAsuUv5DrXn2n1EzFI7bgFAgg6ReM3Gg2ZKMPhD4knlkOI6KqUJpCAP@rfc-editor.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyDz0aAu5h3R2JgrZ40L2vM6pYqvSpZlbp99KA+ndJg8lfC9i7v XsmyR5ZctFDZrZCT5gRhTjdez9+Cq7rb4GFNcmUNIrzSEqMtgojShx1I+TbKPbHKE1oTCtSKnBB 4n3qjKEkVHgm1dkpQB839vcBskPQE6g== X-Gm-Gg: Acq92OHbUYaudBopzOghDq9/WxL9YP8Xo527cvoK+SwrDpmDEBw8dKQqHViSFC7aAjI Qu9ofy4XdRjcySHTjyIHS/jxlPihruUIFCHhJBXsWyVxO9BXo36vqmzlkG/zRsBCngxRrk9mb3g IZ6IwuooXeJszdLxNFCIsLxQe3qQE1Valv4TTNAhGyuuAFpdpLzBr+kKeutihgPMplPgbtiazVR f25zWaQZ7mNvFS9lJzYS33ezyIBkGfgXqGOHXlznmpJrgLg1RmYxnmVft1rYiBqaqiywTac7xY2 cLW7i8o9S/NlfHBccrdGPat0t29zkZ44BV77H6XhL2vj5/Kh X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:4b0a:b0:7b3:edc7:9b97 with SMTP id 00721157ae682-7ed0878ff32mr178888297b3.0.1780955735490; Mon, 08 Jun 2026 14:55:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <178064098660.17.6211840984486207880@rfc-editor.org> <482E42C7-C70B-4EB7-A4BC-262F5D6728B5@staff.rfc-editor.org> In-Reply-To: <482E42C7-C70B-4EB7-A4BC-262F5D6728B5@staff.rfc-editor.org> From: James M Snell Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2026 14:55:23 -0700 X-Gm-Features: AVVi8CeSsP9G2tfZkR3eucflIKCUrIKe2pxHy017jdPLV_oPGqa_2PlHdmmaCd4 Message-ID: To: Sandy Ginoza Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f986810653c51188" Message-ID-Hash: TENZOODUMMNMK4X2JODDUREGNYHWDOC7 X-Message-ID-Hash: TENZOODUMMNMK4X2JODDUREGNYHWDOC7 X-MailFrom: jasnell@gmail.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: RFC Editor , Julian Reschke , Mike Bishop , auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk, Mark Nottingham , wit-ads@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6 Precedence: list Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5Bauth48=5D_Re=3A_Final_Review=3A_RFC-to-be_10008_=3Cdraft-ietf-h?= =?utf-8?q?ttpbis-safe-method-w-body=3E_in_XML/GitHub?= List-Id: "Archiving AUTH48 exchanges between the RFC Production Center, the authors, and other related parties" Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: --000000000000f986810653c51188 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Approved from my end. - James M Snell he/him https://bsky.app/profile/jasnell.me On Mon, Jun 8, 2026, 14:50 Sandy Ginoza wrote: > Greetings all, > > We have updated the document as discussed in Github < > https://github.com/rfc-editor-drafts/FinalReview-rfc10008/>. All of the > issues and other comments have been resolved. The resulting XML and > outputs are available here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10008.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10008.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10008.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10008.html > > Comprehensive diffs: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10008-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10008-rfcdiff.html (side by side= ) > > Final Review diffs: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10008-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10008-auth48rfcdiff.html (side > by side) > > Please review and let us know if any further updates are needed or if you > approve the RFC for publication. > > Thank you, > Sandy Ginoza > RFC Production Center > > > > > On Jun 4, 2026, at 11:29=E2=80=AFPM, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > > > Authors, > > > > While reviewing this document during Final Review, please resolve (as > necessary) the following questions, which are also in GitHub as issues < > https://github.com/rfc-editor-drafts/FinalReview-rfc10008/issues>. > > > > 1) > > > > > > 2) > > > > > > 3) > > > > > > 4) > > > > > > 5) > > > > > > 6) > > > > > > 7) > > > > > > 8) > > > > 9) > > > > Thank you. > > > > Kaelin Foody and Sandy Ginoza > > RFC Production Center > > > > On Jun 4, 2026, at 11:14=E2=80=AFPM, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > > > RFC Author(s): > > -------------- > > > > Your document has now entered Final Review (formerly AUTH48). > > > > Final Review is being handled in GitHub as part of the GitHub pilot tes= t > > (see > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=3Drpc-github-phase-0-pilo= t-test). > > > > > Your document is available for review at: > > https://github.com/rfc-editor-drafts/FinalReview-rfc10008 > > > > Please do the following: > > > > a) accept your invitations to join the repo as collaborators. > > > > b) see the README for details on the Final Review process: > > > https://github.com/rfc-editor-drafts/FinalReview-rfc10008/blob/Approved/R= EADME.md > > > > c) review the edits in the RPC-edits pull request: > > https://github.com/rfc-editor-drafts/FinalReview-rfc10008/pulls > > > > d) address the issues: > > https://github.com/rfc-editor-drafts/FinalReview-rfc10008/issues > > > > Once the content is stable in GitHub, we will provide the updated XML > file > > and the output files for review and approval. > > > > You and your coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties > > (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing > > your approval. > > > > Once the document has been reviewed and approved by all of the authors, > > it will be published as an RFC. If an author is no longer available, > > there are several remedies; see the Unavailable Authors section > > (https://authors.ietf.org/rfc-publication-process#unavailable-authors). > > > > Details on the status of your Final Review are here: > > https://queue.rfc-editor.org/final-review/rfc10008/ > > > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > > > RFC Production Center > > > > --000000000000f986810653c51188 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Approved from my end.=C2=A0

- James M Snell
=C2=A0 he/him
=C2= =A0 https://bsky.app/profil= e/jasnell.me

On Mon, Jun 8, 2026, 14:50 Sand= y Ginoza <sginoza@staff.= rfc-editor.org> wrote:
Greet= ings all,

We have updated the document as discussed in Github <https://github.com/rfc-editor-drafts/FinalReview-r= fc10008/>.=C2=A0 All of the issues and other comments have been reso= lved.=C2=A0 The resulting XML and outputs are available here:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0https://www.rfc-editor.org/au= thors/rfc10008.xml
=C2=A0 =C2=A0https://www.rfc-editor.org/au= thors/rfc10008.txt
=C2=A0 =C2=A0https://www.rfc-editor.org/au= thors/rfc10008.pdf
=C2=A0 =C2=A0https://www.rfc-editor.org/a= uthors/rfc10008.html

Comprehensive diffs:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0https://www.rfc-editor.= org/authors/rfc10008-diff.html
=C2=A0 =C2=A0https://www.rfc-edit= or.org/authors/rfc10008-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Final Review diffs:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0https://www.rfc-e= ditor.org/authors/rfc10008-auth48diff.html
=C2=A0 =C2=A0https://www.rf= c-editor.org/authors/rfc10008-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Please review and let us know if any further updates are needed or if you a= pprove the RFC for publication.

Thank you,
Sandy Ginoza
RFC Production Center



> On Jun 4, 2026, at 11:29=E2=80=AFPM, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org<= /a> wrote:
>
> Authors,
>
> While reviewing this document during Final Review, please resolve (as = necessary) the following questions, which are also in GitHub as issues <= https://github.com/rfc-ed= itor-drafts/FinalReview-rfc10008/issues>.
>
> 1) <!--[rfced] Abstract: We have added "QUERY requests" t= o the sentence below
> to clarify what this sentence refers to. Please review.
>
> Original:
> This is similar to POST requests but can be automatically repeated
> or restarted without concern for partial state changes.
>
> Current:
> This is similar to POST requests, but QUERY requests can be automatica= lly repeated
> or restarted without concern for partial state changes.
> -->
>
>
> 2) <!--[rfced] May we adjust the sentence below as follows for read= ability
> and replace "absent" with "without"?
>
> Original:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0In this variation, however, it is not readily apparent - a= bsent
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0specific knowledge of the resource and server to which the= request is
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0being sent - that a safe, idempotent query is being perfor= med.
>
> Perhaps:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0However, in this variation, it is not readily apparent >=C2=A0 =C2=A0that a safe, idempotent query is being performed (without<= br> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0specific knowledge of the resource and server to which the= request is
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0being sent).
>
> -->
>
>
> 3) <!-- [rfced] Section 2.1: May we update the first and last items= in the list below
> for consistency?
>
> Original:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0The list below describes various cases of failures and rec= ommends
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0specific status codes:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0*=C2=A0 A request lacking media type information
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 by definition is incorrect and needs to fail
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 with a 4xx status code such as 400 (Client Error).=
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0*=C2=A0 If a media type is specified...
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0*=C2=A0 If a media type is specified...
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0*=C2=A0 If the media type is specified...
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0*=C2=A0 Finally, if the client requests a specific respons= e media type
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 using the Accept field ([HTTP], Section 12.5.1) wh= ich is not
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 supported by the resource, a status code of 406 (N= ot Acceptable)
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 is appropriate.
>
> Perhaps:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0The list below describes various cases of failures and rec= ommends
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0specific status codes:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0*=C2=A0 If a request lacks media type information,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 it is incorrect by definition and needs to fail >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 with a 4xx status code such as 400 (Client Error).=
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ...
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0*=C2=A0 If the client requests a specific response media t= ype
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 using the Accept field ([HTTP], Section 12.5.1) th= at is not
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 supported by the resource, a status code of 406 (N= ot Acceptable)
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 is appropriate.
>
> -->
>
>
> 4) <!-- [rfced] How may we adjust the text below for readability? >
> Original:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0The _equivalent resource_ for any given QUERY request is a= resource
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0responding to GET requests, representing that QUERY reques= t and its
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0target, taking both message content and metadata into acco= unt
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0(Section 6 of [HTTP]).=C2=A0 =C2=A0
>
> Perhaps:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0The _equivalent resource_ for any given QUERY request is a= resource
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0that responds to GET requests, represents that QUERY reque= st and its
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0target, and takes both message content and metadata into a= ccount
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0(Section 6 of [HTTP]).=C2=A0
>
> -->
>
>
> 5) <!-- [rfced] What is being "normalized" in the last tw= o list items below?
> Should these list items be updated accordingly for clarity? (Note that= we
> have provided additional text for context.)
>
> Original:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0To improve cache efficiency, caches MAY remove semanticall= y
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0insignificant differences first.=C2=A0 For instance, by: >
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0*=C2=A0 removing content encoding(s) (Section 8.4 of [HTTP= ]).
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0*=C2=A0 normalizing based upon knowledge of format convent= ions, as
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 indicated by any media subtype suffix in the reque= st's Content-
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Type field (e.g., "+json", see Section 4= .2.8 of [RFC6838]).
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0*=C2=A0 normalizing based upon knowledge of the semantics = of the content
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 itself, as indicated by the request's Content-= Type field.
>
> -->
>
>
> 6) <!-- [rfced] Our understanding is that the WHATWG #links are not= permanent (see https://authors.ietf.org/en/reference-= style-guidance#web-hypertext-application-technology-working-group-whatwg).=C2=A0 We do not see a request for the following #links to be made perma= nent on <https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues?q=3Dis%3Aissue%20-state%3A%20= permanent%20anchor>.=C2=A0 For now, we have removed the #links and r= eplaced them with section number and title.=C2=A0 Please let us know if you= request permanent links.
>
> https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#methods
> https://url.spec.whatw= g.org/#application/x-www-form-urlencoded
> -->
>
>
> 7) <!-- [rfced] Would you like the references to be alphabetized > or left in their current order? -->
>
>
> 8) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for abbreviations up= on first use
> per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please revi= ew each
> expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness.
> -->
>
> 9) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" po= rtion of the online
> Style Guide <https= ://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
> and let us know if any changes are needed.=C2=A0 Updates of this natur= e typically
> result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers.
>
> Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this sh= ould
> still be reviewed as a best practice.
> -->
>
> Thank you.
>
> Kaelin Foody and Sandy Ginoza
> RFC Production Center
>
> On Jun 4, 2026, at 11:14=E2=80=AFPM, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org<= /a> wrote:
>
> *****IMPORTANT*****
>
> RFC Author(s):
> --------------
>
> Your document has now entered Final Review (formerly AUTH48).
>
> Final Review is being handled in GitHub as part of the GitHub pilot te= st
> (see = https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=3Drpc-github-phase-0-pilot-= test).
>
> Your document is available for review at:
> https://github.com/rfc-edit= or-drafts/FinalReview-rfc10008
>
> Please do the following:
>
> a) accept your invitations to join the repo as collaborators.
>
> b) see the README for details on the Final Review process:
> htt= ps://github.com/rfc-editor-drafts/FinalReview-rfc10008/blob/Approved/README= .md
>
> c) review the edits in the RPC-edits pull request:
> https://github.com/rf= c-editor-drafts/FinalReview-rfc10008/pulls
>
> d) address the issues:
> https://github.com/r= fc-editor-drafts/FinalReview-rfc10008/issues
>
> Once the content is stable in GitHub, we will provide the updated XML = file
> and the output files for review and approval.
>
> You and your coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing > your approval.
>
> Once the document has been reviewed and approved by all of the authors= ,
> it will be published as an RFC.=C2=A0 If an author is no longer availa= ble,
> there are several remedies; see the Unavailable Authors section
> (https://authors= .ietf.org/rfc-publication-process#unavailable-authors).
>
> Details on the status of your Final Review are here:
>=C2=A0 https://queue.rfc-editor.or= g/final-review/rfc10008/
>
> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>
> Thank you for your cooperation,
>
> RFC Production Center
>

--000000000000f986810653c51188--