Hi, we have uploaded a new version (18) of the draft. We fixed some minor issues and some editorial things. Please, find our reply to your questions below. I give you our aligned response on behalf of the authors.
Name: draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang Revision: 18 Title: YANG Data Models for the Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (ALTO) Protocol Date: 2026-02-04 Group: alto Pages: 85 URL: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang-18.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang/ HTML: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang-18.html HTMLized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang Diff: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang-18 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? Response: Yes 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.) Response: The terminology is as per YANG and ALTO specifications. For all YANG parameters we have used double quotes consistently. 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 * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be updated to point to the replacement I-D. * References to documents from other organizations that have been superseded will be updated to their superseding version. Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use idnits 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. Response: We have updated it and checked it. 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? Response: We have checked and see no issues. 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this document? RS: No 6) This document uses one or more of the following text styles. Are these elements used consistently? * fixed width font (<tt/> or `) * italics (<em/> or *) * bold (<strong/> or **) Response: Yes 7) This document contains sourcecode: Response: Yes * 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? Response: Yes * Is the sourcecode type indicated in the XML? (See information about types: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types.) Response: Yes, it is indicated 8) 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 Response: Yes, heads-up regarding "http client", we need to recompile and are dependent on it in case of change of YANG model. Best Regards Roland -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: [email protected] <[email protected]> Gesendet: Freitag, 19. Dezember 2025 23:35 An: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Schott, Roland <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Betreff: Document intake questions abou <draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang-17> 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? Response: Yes 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.) Response: 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. Response: We have updated it and checked it. 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? Response: We have checked and see no issues. 5) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this document? RS: No 6) This document uses one or more of the following text styles. Are these elements used consistently? * fixed width font (<tt/> or `) * italics (<em/> or *) * bold (<strong/> or **) Response: Yes 7) This document contains sourcecode: Response: Yes * 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? Response: Yes * Is the sourcecode type indicated in the XML? (See information about types: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types.) Response: Yes, it is indicated 8) 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 Response: Yes, heads-up regarding http client, we need to recompile and are dependent on it in case of change of YANG model. -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
