Hi Roland, Thank you for your reply. We will continue to process version -18.
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Feb 5, 2026, at 9:35 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > 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 * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be 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 superseded will be updated to their superseding version.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]
