Hi Sarah I had to upload version 25 of the doc because of minor change for IANA.
Just an FYI Thanks Hooman -----Original Message----- From: Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 5:29 PM To: Hooman Bidgoli (Nokia) <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Document intake questions about <draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping-24> CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information. Hi Hooman, Thank you for your reply! We will incorporate this feedback during the editing process. Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Oct 7, 2025, at 11:40 AM, Hooman Bidgoli (Nokia) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > HI Sarah > > My apologies, please see inline > > Thanks > Hooman > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 11:35 AM > To: Hooman Bidgoli (Nokia) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: Document intake questions about > <draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping-24> > > > CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking > links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional > information. > > > > Hi Authors, > > This is a friendly reminder that we await answers to the questions below. > > Thank you, > Sarah Tarrant > RFC Production Center > >> On Sep 25, 2025, at 4:22 PM, Sarah Tarrant <[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]. >> >> 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 References, Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and >> Acknowledgments sections current? >> > HB> yes they are >> >> 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.) >> > HB> Some terminology refers to draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-22 >> >> 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? >> > HB> no but we are trying to keep the terminology inline with > draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-22. There revisions were done because of this. >> >> 4) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while >> editing this document? >> > HB> no >> >> 5) This document is part of Cluster 556. >> >> * 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. > > HB> Yes. draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-22 is the basis of > draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping-24 and should be read first. > >> * 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)? > HB> no >> >> >>> On Sep 25, 2025, at 4:13 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> Author(s), >>> >>> Your document draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping-24, 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 -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
