Hi Greg, Thank you for your reply. Regarding:
>> 3) Is there any text that should be handled extra cautiously? For example, >> are >> there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? > > [GW] OMG. Nearly every paragraph. That's why we're on draft-33! We'll be sure to handle this one with extra care! Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Sep 18, 2025, at 3:54 PM, Greg White <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > I've reviewed the questions below with my co-authors, and am providing the > answers below (marked [GW]). > > -Greg > > > On 9/17/25, 2:23 PM, "Sarah Tarrant" <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>. > > 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 is still accurate? > > [GW] Yes. > > * Are the References, Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments > sections current? > > [GW] We should probably add acks for the IESG reviewers who provided comments: > Mohamed Boucadair > Ketan Talaulikar > Mike Bishop > Roman Danyliw > Éric Vyncke > > > 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? > If so, please provide a pointer to that document (e.g., this document's > terminology should match DNS terminology in RFC 9499). > * Is there a pattern of capitalization or formatting of terms? (e.g., field > names > should have initial capitalization; parameter names should be in double > quotes; > <tt/> should be used for token names; etc.) > > [GW] Not that I am aware of. > > > 3) Is there any text that should be handled extra cautiously? For example, are > there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? > > [GW] OMG. Nearly every paragraph. That's why we're on draft-33! > > > 4) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this > document? > > [GW] Not that I am aware of. > > > 5) This document is part of Cluster 350. > > * 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. > > [GW] This document should precede draft-briscoe-docsis-q-protection > > * 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. > > [GW] Section 5.3 parallels text in > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9331.html#section-5.5 > > > 6) Because this document RFC 8325, please review > the reported errata and confirm that they have either been addressed in this > document or are not relevant: > > * RFC 8325 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc8325 > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc8325>) > > [GW] Those errata are not relevant to this update of RFC8325. > > >> On Sep 17, 2025, at 3:14 PM, [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Author(s), >> >> Your document draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb-33, 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> >> <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/> >> <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/> >> <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/> >> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/>>). >> >> You can check the status of your document at >> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php> >> <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/> >> <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 -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
