Hi Sarah,
> On Feb 3, 2026, at 1:08 PM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Kent, > > Very good! We're just waiting on AD approval. > > In the meantime, could you answer the questions we had on the intake form? Please see responses below. Kent >> 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? I found a typo in the Abstract (the entire last sentence was redundant). Also, I thought it best to align the Abstract with the Introduction. For these reasons, there is now a -33. Everything you ask about looks okay. >> 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 document is part of a set of documents described in the section "Relation to other RFCs", and thus follows conventions used by them. Otherwise, the document uses YANG, which defines a number of conventions in RFC 8407 and rfc8407bis. I tend to put some terms in double quotes, e.g., the YANG "grouping" statement. If this were Markdown, I might make these "code", i.e., `grouping`. In any case, I (likely) used the same convention by the whole set of draft, some of which have already been published, i.e., RFCs 9640 thru 9645. >> 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 * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be 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 superseded will be updated to their superseding version.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 Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use 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. Everything looks okay. idnits has a NON_ASCII_UTF8 complaint which I refuse to fix, because it is only used in someone's name in the Acknowledgements section. >> 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? Not really. The bulk of the document is YANG, which is rather mechanical. But note that the Abstract/Introduction sections had "loose" language that was refined, e.g., from "FOO defines config for BAR" to "FOO defines config for a BAR's BAZ". This text was/is rather sensitive. >> 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this >> document? Nothing comes to mind. >> 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 The "Relation to other RFCs" section in the draft covers all this. > Thank you, > Sarah Tarrant > RFC Production Center Thanks again! Kent -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
