Hi Greg, Thank you for your response!
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Dec 8, 2025, at 8:22 PM, Greg Mirsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > apologies for the belated response and thank you for your friendly reminder. > Please find the responses in-lined below tagged GIM>>. Please let me know if > you have any questions > > Regards, > Greg (on behalf of the authors) > > On Mon, Dec 8, 2025 at 3:02 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 Dec 3, 2025, at 4:47 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. > GIM>> All received DISCUSSes and COMMENTS were addressed, and there are no > outstanding changes to the document. > > > > > > 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? > GIM>> Yes, the Abstract was updated based on our discussion with IESG > reviewers. The current version of the Abstract is accurate. > > * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments > > sections current? > GIM>> All that information is 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). > GIM>> Terminology section lists a number of RFCs that are the source of terms > used in this document. For example: > * [RFC7799], particularly definitions of Active, Passive, and Hybrid > measurement methods and metrics. > > * The definitions and calculation of performance metrics, e.g., > throughput, loss, delay, and delay variation metrics, are defined > in [RFC6374]. > > * 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.) > GIM>> AFAICS, capitalization is consistent throughout the document. > > > > > > 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. > GIM>> Thank you for your detailed guidance. idnits reported no errors: > No issues found here. > > No nits found.> > > > > 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? > GIM>> There were no contentious issues during the WG LC, IETF LC, or IESG > review. > > > > > > > 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing > > this > > document? > GIM>> No special requests. > > > > > > >> On Dec 3, 2025, at 4:43 PM, [email protected] wrote: > >> > >> Author(s), > >> > >> Your document draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements-21, 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]
