Hi Thomas, Thank you for your reply! We will incorporate your feedback during the editing process.
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Oct 10, 2025, at 11:53 PM, <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > > Thanks a lot for the reminder. Apology for the late reply. On behalf of the > author, see below inline our feedback. > > With best wishes > Thomas > >> 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? > > TG> The document with the authors, contributors and acknowledgement > references are up to date. > >> 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.) > > TG> All the relevant terms are listed in > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-23#section-2 > with their references. Please ensure that RFC 7011, RFC 7799 and RFC 8911 > terminology is being honored and preserved. > >> 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? > > TG> No > >> 4) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while >> editing this document? > > TG> Apart from the terminology, nothing else. Thanks! > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
