Hi Oliver, Thank you for your reply!
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Jan 7, 2026, at 5:51 AM, Oliver Gasser <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Sarah, all, > > Sorry for the delay, I'm back from my time off now. Responses to questions > are inline. > > Cheers, > > Oliver > > On 12/22/25 6:10 PM, Sarah Tarrant wrote: >> Hi Randy, >> Sending in response to your question: >>> hmmm. both russ and i said ok to the iana reg change. >>> >>> so could you whack me with a clue bat with exactly what you await? >> We are looking out for the authors' responses to the Intake Form, included >> here: >>> 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? > > 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). > > This document is related to RFC8805 and RFC9632. > >>> * 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.) > > We write the term "prefixlen" in all lower case throughout the document, with > the exception of the "Prefixlen" keyword as part of the "remarks:" field. > >>> >>> >>> 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? > > No. > >>> >>> >>> 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this >>> document? > > No. > >>> >>> >>> 6) This document uses one or more of the following text styles. >>> Are these elements used consistently? >>> >>> * fixed width font (<tt/> or `) >>> * italics (<em/> or *) >>> * bold (<strong/> or **) > > Yes, I hope so. > >>> >>> >>> 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. > > No. > >> Sincerely, >> Sarah Tarrant >> RFC Production Center >>> On Dec 18, 2025, at 11:37 AM, Randy Bush <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> mornin'sarah, >>> >>>> Now we just need answers to the Intake Form before proceeding with >>>> this draft. >>> >>> i am leaving that to the primary author, oliver. i just stuck my nose >>> in to smooth a process gl!tch. >>> >>> randy -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
