Hi Sarah, I'm still stuck on responses from others, but I think that I'll will give up hope for an agreement there, and instead move the draft's solution back to a previously agreed solution (note: all this happened in the IESG review stage).
FWIW, I'm miffed that all this didn't get sussed out before (e.g, during the WGLC) :mad: Kent // author > On Jan 12, 2026, at 4:57 PM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Kent, > > Just checking in on the status of the aforementioned "snafu" and 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 Jan 6, 2026, at 10:37 AM, Kent Watsen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Dear Sarah, >> >> This draft hit a snafu during the IANA review. >> >> Worst case is that a rather large edit will be made that will impact various >> sections including the Abstract and Introduction. I've been waiting for >> the snafu to resolve before replying to your message below, but it seems >> that the Winter Holidays slowed things down. I just pinged some of the >> blocking folks, so hopefully a resolution will come soon. >> >> Please note that, if the "large edit" mentioned above is needed, >> draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-client-server MAY be affected. I believe that >> it is in the same Cluster as this draft. >> >> Kent // author >> >> >> >>> On Jan 5, 2026, at 10:50 AM, 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 19, 2025, at 4:29 PM, [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? >>>> >>>> >>>> 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.) >>>> >>>> >>>> 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? >>>> >>>> >>>> 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing >>>> this >>>> document? >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>> >> > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
