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

[Sarah Tarrant <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lijun,

Thank you for letting me know! I'll be on the lookout for that reply.

Sincerely,
Sarah Tarrant
RFC Production Center

> On Aug 5, 2026, at 5:03 AM, Lijun Liao <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Sarah,
> 
> Thank you for your reminder.
> 
> Our main coordinator, Göran Selander, is currently on vacation. We'd prefer to wait until he is back so we can coordinate a complete response to the outstanding questions. We will get back to you as soon as  Göran returns.
> 
> Thank you for your patience and understanding.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Lijun Liao
> 
> From: Sarah Tarrant <[e-mail]>
> Date: Tuesday, 4. August 2026 at 22:27
> To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<[e-mail]>; Lijun Liao <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: Document intake questions about draft-ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert
> 
> CAUTION! External Email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
> 
> Hi Authors,
> 
> This is a second 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 29, 2026, at 10:02 AM, Sarah Tarrant <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > 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://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhttpwg.org%2Fadmin%2Feditors%2Fstyle-guide&data=05%7C02%7Clijun.liao%40nio.io%7C29da41b3f1ce4a01343808def266ba9d%7Cea1b2f97423f4ab3bf6d45a36c09ce34%7C1%7C0%7C639214720259557696%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TjzeM7%2F04lf64h56N6a1UoGRxbRj3CSoz8xgzHWiXac%3D&reserved=0>.").
> >>
> >> * 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://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fauthor-tools.ietf.org%2Fidnits&data=05%7C02%7Clijun.liao%40nio.io%7C29da41b3f1ce4a01343808def266ba9d%7Cea1b2f97423f4ab3bf6d45a36c09ce34%7C1%7C0%7C639214720259604051%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=N4xNEevXoQtkDOtQdOlvxxAdK9URktXjhM3ew%2Fw6OlQ%3D&reserved=0>.
> >>
> >>
> >> 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://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fauthors.ietf.org%2Fformal-languages&data=05%7C02%7Clijun.liao%40nio.io%7C29da41b3f1ce4a01343808def266ba9d%7Cea1b2f97423f4ab3bf6d45a36c09ce34%7C1%7C0%7C639214720259636242%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=V2O3Wmm4AnQuhdwWwo7u9qJJ%2FkLyI4knwV3at5l6VUw%3D&reserved=0.
> >>
> >> * 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://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Frpc%2Fwiki%2Fdoku.php%3Fid%3Dsourcecode-types&data=05%7C02%7Clijun.liao%40nio.io%7C29da41b3f1ce4a01343808def266ba9d%7Cea1b2f97423f4ab3bf6d45a36c09ce34%7C1%7C0%7C639214720259665363%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nLcZT8YCP3ZVAYinZCY5ZijdSplSHYFDMfHSNZXOccw%3D&reserved=0.)
> >>
> >>
> >> 7) This document is part of Cluster 582:
> >> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fqueue.rfc-editor.org%2Fclusters%2F582%2F&data=05%7C02%7Clijun.liao%40nio.io%7C29da41b3f1ce4a01343808def266ba9d%7Cea1b2f97423f4ab3bf6d45a36c09ce34%7C1%7C0%7C639214720259691114%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=IWuO%2BsVcMvojyq4K%2BPD8OTAR5YCNGrcWMp%2BEqYplx2o%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> >> * 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://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fauthors.ietf.org%2Fen%2Frfc-publication-process%23clusters&data=05%7C02%7Clijun.liao%40nio.io%7C29da41b3f1ce4a01343808def266ba9d%7Cea1b2f97423f4ab3bf6d45a36c09ce34%7C1%7C0%7C639214720259727602%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=j9zITcT4pJJadEHgLStwjxotFHC137bDjHGt3mirz2c%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> >> * For a list of all current clusters, see:
> >> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fqueue.rfc-editor.org%2Fclusters%2F&data=05%7C02%7Clijun.liao%40nio.io%7C29da41b3f1ce4a01343808def266ba9d%7Cea1b2f97423f4ab3bf6d45a36c09ce34%7C1%7C0%7C639214720259755267%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=mRQ64gcjyTX4Aq184T5o0RJYB%2F%2BK9zXu2COPI2drSKU%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> >>
> >> 8) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this
> >> document?
> >>
> >
> 
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. You may NOT use, disclose, copy or disseminate this information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and destroy all copies of the original message and all attachments. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. Finally, the recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.