Hi Alex, Thank you for your reply!
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Jan 13, 2026, at 10:29 AM, Alex Huang Feng <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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]
