Responses below. On 10/28/25, 2:53 PM, "Sarah Tarrant" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hello Authors, This is a friendly reminder that we await answers to the answers below. Thank you, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Oct 21, 2025, at 9:51 AM, [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 still accurate? Yes > * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments > sections current? Yes > > > 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). Perhaps RFCs 9330/9331/9332 > * 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> > <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits>>. You can also help the > IETF Tools Team by testing idnits3 <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits3/> > <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits3/>> > with your document and reporting any issues to them. > > All fine. > 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? > > Nothing notable. > 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this > document? The "Implementation Status" section is out-of-date (there are now more implementations beyond those listed in the text underneath Table 1). It is unclear to me whether there is value in making an update that points to a specific number of implementations. Perhaps it could be changed as follows: Current: " and one CMTS implementation by a third manufacturer." Proposed: " and several CMTS implementations by other manufacturers." > > > 6) This document contains sourcecode: > > * Does the sourcecode validate? > * Some sourcecode types (e.g., YANG) require certain references and/or text > in the Security Considerations section. Is this information correct? > * Is the sourcecode type indicated in the XML? (See information about > sourcecode types.) > The sourcecode in this document is pseudocode, and so will not validate. > > 7) 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. > * 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)? > * For more information about clusters, see > https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/clusters/ > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/clusters/> > * For a list of all current clusters, see: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/all_clusters.php > <http://www.rfc-editor.org/all_clusters.php> > draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb should precede this one. -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
