Hi Sarah, Back from the Thanksgiving holiday, sorry for the delay. Responses to your comments below!
Kent > On Dec 1, 2025, at 3:20 PM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Author(s), > > This is a friendly reminder that we await answers to the questions below > before continuing with the editing process for this document. > > Thank you, > Sarah Tarrant > RFC Production Center > >> On Nov 13, 2025, at 2:42 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 Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments >> sections current? All of the above are accurate. One nit found in the Abstract and Introduction: OLD: Both modules support both NEW: These modules support both Fixed in the just uploaded -41 document. >> 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.) This document is part of a suite of documents mentioned in the Introduction. It should match the style presented in those other documents. This document uses YANG, for which guidance in provided in RFC 8407. Whilst there are many stylistic recommendation, a prevailing recommendation is to use hyphen-separation lowercase field names. >> 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. I installed idnits3. It threw numerous errors. I filed some issues: - https://github.com/ietf-tools/idnits/issues/246 - https://github.com/ietf-tools/idnits/issues/247 - https://github.com/ietf-tools/idnits/issues/248 - https://github.com/ietf-tools/idnits/issues/249 - https://github.com/ietf-tools/idnits/issues/250 - https://github.com/ietf-tools/idnits/issues/251 - https://github.com/ietf-tools/idnits/issues/252 - https://github.com/ietf-tools/idnits/issues/253 - https://github.com/ietf-tools/idnits/issues/254 In the end, the only valid issue is that the document contains non-ASCII UTF8. This is on-purpose, as the UTF8 is used in the Acknowledgements section, for names containing non-ASCII characters. >> 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? No sections need to be handled extra cautiously. >> 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this >> document? Nothing else the RPC needs to be aware of. >> 6) This document is part of Cluster 463. >> >> * 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/ >> * For a list of all current clusters, see: >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/all_clusters.php The Introduction section identifies this document being part of a suite of documents. A dependency diagram is provided. Generally speaking, starting with the "root" document (RFC 9640) and working towards this document would be logical. This document and draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-client-server are near twins, the scope is the same, with the only difference being the protocol (NETCONF vs RESTCONF). Sections are very much the same across these two documents, down to paragraphs being nearly identical. >> 7) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for editing in >> kramdown-rfc? >> If so, please let us know and provide a self-contained kramdown-rfc file. >> For more >> information about this experiment, see: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc. I am not interested in kramdown-rfc. Whilst I like Markdown, and use it extensively for production documentation, I am only interested in the XML format for RFCs because it is the native format. >> 8) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for completing AUTH48 >> in >> GitHub? If so, please let us know. For more information about this >> experiment, >> see: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=rpc-github-phase-0-pilot-test. This would be okay. I imagine using a GitHub PR being more expedient than the (long) email messages used to date. Kent // author >> >> >>> On Nov 13, 2025, at 2:39 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> Author(s), >>> >>> Your document draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server-40, 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]
