Hi Kent, Just checking in to see how this draft is going.
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Jan 15, 2026, at 3:54 PM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Kent, > > Well, I'm sorry to hear that that has been so frustrating. > > Do you expect to post a version update with that previous solution? > > Sincerely, > Sarah Tarrant > RFC Production Center > >> On Jan 15, 2026, at 12:01 PM, Kent Watsen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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]
