Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9311 <draft-ietf-shmoo-hackathon-08> for your review

[Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>]

Hi Charles,

We have now received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete:

https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9311

Thank you for your attention and guidance during the AUTH48 process.
We will move this document forward in the publication process at this time.

RFC Editor/ap

> On Sep 6, 2022, at 2:40 PM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Alanna,
> 
> I have reviewed the changes. They look good to me.
> 
> Thanks,
> Charles
> 
>> On Sep 2, 2022, at 11:55 AM, Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Charles and *Lars, 
>> 
>> Thank you for your reply. We have updated the files as requested.
>> 
>> *Lars, as the AD, please review and confirm that the Implementation Status section should remain in this document.
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9311-auth48diff.html 
>> 
>> The files have been posted here (please refresh):
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9311.txt
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9311.pdf
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9311.html
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc931.xml
>> 
>> The relevant diff files are posted here:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9311-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9311-auth48diff.html (all AUTH48 changes)
>> 
>> Please review the document carefully as documents do not change once published as RFCs.
>> 
>> We will await any further changes you may have and your approvals prior to moving forward in the publication process.
>> 
>> Please see the AUTH48 status page for this document here:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9311
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> RFC Editor/ap
>> 
>>> On Sep 1, 2022, at 2:15 PM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <eckelcu=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear RFC Editor/ap/kc,
>>> 
>>> Thank you for your work on this document. I have attempted to address each of the questions inline.
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 31, 2022, at 4:23 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Author,
>>>> 
>>>> While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
>>>> 
>>>> 1) <!--[rfced] Note that we have updated the short title, which appears in
>>>> the running header in the PDF output, as follows.
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> ietf-hackathon
>>>> 
>>>> Current:
>>>> IETF Hackathon
>>>> -->
>>> 
>>> Looks good.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
>>> 
>>> No additional keywords.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 3) <!--[rfced] May we shorten the following citation names for easier
>>>> readability in the text and for consistency in the References
>>>> section? 
>>>> 
>>>> [IETF-RUNNING-CODE-SPONSOR] —> [RUNNING-CODE-SPONSOR]
>>>> [IETF-IRTF-IAB-PRIVACY-STATEMENT] —>  [PRIVACY-STATEMENT]
>>>> 
>>>> Perhaps:
>>>> Hackathon sponsorship is available at different levels as part of
>>>> being an IETF [RUNNING-CODE-SPONSOR].
>>>> 
>>>> The Hackathon complies with the IETF/IRTF/IAB Privacy Statement
>>>> [PRIVACY-STATEMENT].
>>>> -->
>>> 
>>> Works for me.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 4) <!--[rfced] Please clarify how the expenses are covered. Do expenses come out of the communications and operations budget or are the expenses approved/supported by the Director of Communications and Operations?
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> Expenses have been covered by the IETF LLC, Director of Communications and
>>>> Operations.
>>>> 
>>>> Perhaps:
>>>> A) Expenses have been approved by the IETF LLC, Director of Communications and
>>>> Operations.
>>>> 
>>>> or 
>>>> 
>>>> B) Expenses have been covered by the IETF LLC, which oversees the communications 
>>>> and operations budget.
>>>> -->
>>> 
>>> Option B seems better to me.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 5) <!-- [rfced] Per the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online Style
>>>> Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>,
>>>> we updated "whiteboard" to "dry erase board". Please let us know of any
>>>> concerns.
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> A whiteboard or shared notes tablet, e.g., [HEDGEDOC], at tables 
>>>> facilitates sharing of information within the team. 
>>>> 
>>>> Current:
>>>> A dry erase board or shared notes tablet, e.g., [HEDGEDOC], at tables 
>>>> facilitates sharing of information within the team. 
>>>> -->
>>> 
>>> Good idea. Thanks for catching that.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 6) <!--[rfced] Per RFC 7942 ("Improving Awareness of Running Code: The
>>>> Implementation Status Section"), may we remove the Implementation
>>>> Status section? -->
>>> 
>>> It would prefer to keep it.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 7) <!--[rfced] Regarding the references to email aliases, may these addresses simply appear within the body of the document (instead of in the References section) as follows? Also, please note that we checked with the Secretariat and apparently "[e-mail]" is an outdated email address; they suggested that we use "[e-mail]" instead.
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> The [EMAIL-ALIAS] was created and is maintained by the Secretariat.
>>>> 
>>>> Perhaps:
>>>> The email alias <[e-mail]> was created and is 
>>>> maintained by the Secretariat.
>>>> 
>>>> Original:
>>>> Best-effort support is available via email to [TICKET].
>>>> 
>>>> NEW:
>>>> Best-effort support is available via email to <[e-mail]>.
>>>> -->
>>> 
>>> Yes, that works for me.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you.
>>>> 
>>>> RFC Editor/ap/kc
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thank you!
>>> Charles
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Aug 31, 2022, at 4:21 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> *****IMPORTANT*****
>>>> 
>>>> Updated 2022/08/31
>>>> 
>>>> RFC Author(s):
>>>> --------------
>>>> 
>>>> Instructions for Completing AUTH48
>>>> 
>>>> Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and 
>>>> approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.  
>>>> If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies 
>>>> available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
>>>> 
>>>> You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties 
>>>> (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing 
>>>> your approval.
>>>> 
>>>> Planning your review 
>>>> ---------------------
>>>> 
>>>> Please review the following aspects of your document:
>>>> 
>>>> *  RFC Editor questions
>>>> 
>>>> Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor 
>>>> that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as 
>>>> follows:
>>>> 
>>>> <!-- [rfced] ... -->
>>>> 
>>>> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
>>>> 
>>>> *  Changes submitted by coauthors 
>>>> 
>>>> Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
>>>> coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you 
>>>> agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
>>>> 
>>>> *  Content 
>>>> 
>>>> Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot 
>>>> change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
>>>> - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
>>>> - contact information
>>>> - references
>>>> 
>>>> *  Copyright notices and legends
>>>> 
>>>> Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
>>>> RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions 
>>>> (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).
>>>> 
>>>> *  Semantic markup
>>>> 
>>>> Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of  
>>>> content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode> 
>>>> and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at 
>>>> <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
>>>> 
>>>> *  Formatted output
>>>> 
>>>> Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the 
>>>> formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is 
>>>> reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting 
>>>> limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Submitting changes
>>>> ------------------
>>>> 
>>>> To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all 
>>>> the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties 
>>>> include:
>>>> 
>>>> *  your coauthors
>>>> 
>>>> *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)
>>>> 
>>>> *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., 
>>>>  IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the 
>>>>  responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
>>>> 
>>>> *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list 
>>>>  to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion 
>>>>  list:
>>>> 
>>>> *  More info:
>>>>    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
>>>> 
>>>> *  The archive itself:
>>>>    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
>>>> 
>>>> *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out 
>>>>    of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
>>>>    If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you 
>>>>    have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 
>>>>    [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and 
>>>>    its addition will be noted at the top of the message. 
>>>> 
>>>> You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
>>>> 
>>>> An update to the provided XML file
>>>> — OR —
>>>> An explicit list of changes in this format
>>>> 
>>>> Section # (or indicate Global)
>>>> 
>>>> OLD:
>>>> old text
>>>> 
>>>> NEW:
>>>> new text
>>>> 
>>>> You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit 
>>>> list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
>>>> 
>>>> We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
>>>> beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, 
>>>> and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in 
>>>> the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Approving for publication
>>>> --------------------------
>>>> 
>>>> To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
>>>> that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
>>>> as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Files 
>>>> -----
>>>> 
>>>> The files are available here:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9311.xml
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9311.html
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9311.pdf
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9311.txt
>>>> 
>>>> Diff file of the text:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9311-diff.html
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9311-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>>>> 
>>>> Diff of the XML: 
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9311-xmldiff1.html
>>>> 
>>>> XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
>>>> only: 
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9311.form.xml
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Tracking progress
>>>> -----------------
>>>> 
>>>> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9311
>>>> 
>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions.  
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you for your cooperation,
>>>> 
>>>> RFC Editor
>>>> 
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> RFC9311 (draft-ietf-shmoo-hackathon-08)
>>>> 
>>>> Title            : Running an IETF Hackathon
>>>> Author(s)        : C. Eckel
>>>> WG Chair(s)      : Suresh Krishnan, Mallory Knodel
>>>> 
>>>> Area Director(s) : Lars Eggert
>> 
>