Hi Sarah,
1. Abstract looks accurate to me. Address for Andrew Stone can be updated to (since it was not filled in current version at all): 600 March Road, Ottawa Ontario K2K 2T6 Canada 1. No specific recommendations. Terminology section is following style of a few other PCEP RFCs (e.g. RFC8231 or RFC8281), but individual abbreviations were expanded based on comments/recommendations during IESG review. 2. References reviewed and looks fine to me. 3. Section 4.2 is updating multiple statements in RFC8664 and it is describing important extension potentially impacting future documents in PCEP WG. 4. I’m not aware about anything else. 5. Errata are not relevant. Regards, Samuel From: Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, 21 October 2025 at 18:25 To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[email protected]>, Zoey Rose (atokar) <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Document intake questions about <draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-29> 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 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? 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.) 3) Please review the entries in the References section carefully 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://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits>. You can also help the IETF Tools Team by testing idnits3 <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits3/> with your document and reporting any issues to them. 4) Is there any text that should be handled extra cautiously? For example, are there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this document? 6) Because this document updates RFCs 8664 and 9603, please review the reported errata and confirm whether they have been addressed in this document or are not relevant: * RFC 8664 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc8664) > On Oct 21, 2025, at 11:15 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Author(s), > > Your document draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-29, 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]
