Dear Sarah, Apologies for missing this email. Please find the responses inline below.
> On 19 Dec 2025, at 21:49, 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? The abstract, author’s addresses and acknowledgments are current and accurate. > > > 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.) The documents tries to follow the format and style of RFC 9643. The name of the modules, the name of the groupings, and the parameters of the groupings should be in double quotes. > > > 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. > Noted. The references are correct. The I-D references should be replaced by their definitive RFC number once published (e.g. the current I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis can already be replaced by RFC 9911) > > 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? The text from this iteration has been well-discussed during the WGLC and IETF LC. > > > 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this > document? Not that I know of. > > > 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 > types: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types.) > The sourcecode has been validated manually, using pyang. The Security Considerations section is correct, we follow I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis as advised by our AD. All sourcecode type are indicated (yangtree, xml and yang). > > 7) 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 current document for does not have normative references to any document of the cluster. The order of reading is independent. As noted above, this document follows the style of RFC 9643 and thus some text may be similar. Regards, Alex > >> On Dec 19, 2025, at 2:46 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> Author(s), >> >> Your document draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-10, 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]
