Ms. Tarrant, Thank you for serving as the editor for our draft! We are really excited about seeing this RFC in final form. We have collaborated on a set of answers to the questions that you posed. I will put them inline (for maximum context). Some of our answers are questions and we understand that we may have to take actions based on your responses. We promise to watch closely for your feedback and act quickly -- we want to make your job as easy as possible.
Thank you, again, for helping us bring this draft to published form! On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 4:02 PM Sarah Tarrant <[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? > The abstract is accurate. There is a minor typo in the acknowledgments: Fiocolla is spelled Fioccola. We understand that you suggested we post updated versions of the draft through Datatracker to make changes but wanted to confirm that this type of error warrants a new draft revision. > > 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, > WG style guide, etc.? If so, please provide a pointer to that information > (e.g., "This document's terminology should match DNS terminology in > RFC 9499." or "This document uses the style info at > <https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide>."). > * Is there a general pattern of capitalization or formatting of terms that > editors can follow (e.g., "Field names should have initial capitalization." > or "Parameter names should be in double quotes." or "<tt/> should be used > for token names." etc.)? The document builds on RFC 8762 and RFC 8972. Use of STAMP-related terms (e.g., Session-Sender) should be consistent with their use/definition in the former and STAMP-extension-related terms (e.g., TLV) should be consistent with their definition/use in the latter. Capitalization and stylization of field names should be done according to the IETF's conventions -- we followed the guidance of our AD when preparing the draft. > > > 3) Please carefully review the entries and their URLs in the > References section 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. According to idnits, our normative reference to the informational 7497 is not appropriate problem. However, according to https://www.ietf.org/process/process/informational-vs-experimental/ and https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7322/, we believe that our reference meets the criteria for normativity (in particular, we rely on the definition of terms from that document which would make our work impossible to understand without having read that document). During the IETF Last Call, however, we did not explicitly reference this downward reference (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc3967/). Any advice you have on how to proceed would be greatly appreciated. > > > 4) Is there any text that requires special handling? For example: > * Are there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? > * Are any sections that need to be removed before publication marked as such > (e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942)). > * Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be edited > the same way? > There is an implementation section that should be removed (6). There are IANA allocations that need to be made (8). > > 5) This document contains SVG. What tool did you use to make the svg? > > The RPC cannot update SVG diagrams, so please ensure that: > > * the SVG figures match the ASCII art used in the text output as closely as > possible, and > * the figures fit on the pages of the PDF output. All diagrams in the XML source code of the document are contained in artsets. As such, there is an ASCII version and an SVG version of each diagram. We believe that the inclusion of both forms of the artwork should give editors maximum flexibility. SVG versions of the diagrams were constructed using aasvg. > > > 6) This document is part of Cluster 570: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C570 > > * 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 RFC 8762 and RFC 8972 establish, broadly, the context for the protocol mechanisms defined by this draft. The former should be read before the latter. RFC 7497 establishes, broadly, the context for the operational deployment of the protocol mechanisms defined by this draft to perform active measurement of the capacity of a network. Thank you, again, for helping us! We will keep our eyes peeled for responses from you and take the appropriate action! Sincerely, Will (for all the authors) > > > 7) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this > document? > > > On Mar 18, 2026, at 2:59 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > Author(s), > > > > Your document draft-ietf-ippm-asymmetrical-pkts-14, which has been approved > > for publication as > > an RFC, has been added to the RFC Editor queue > > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php>. > > > > If your XML file was submitted using the I-D submission tool > > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/>, we have already retrieved it > > and have started working on it. > > > > If you did not submit the file via the I-D submission tool, or > > if you have an updated version (e.g., updated contact information), > > please send us the file at this time by attaching it > > in your reply to this message and specifying any differences > > between the approved I-D and the file that you are providing. > > > > You will receive a separate message from us asking for style input. > > Please respond to that message. When we have received your response, > > your document will then move through the queue. The first step that > > we take as your document moves through the queue is converting it to > > RFCXML (if it is not already in RFCXML) and applying the formatting > > steps listed at <https://www.rfc-editor.org/pubprocess/how-we-update/>. > > Next, we will edit for clarity and apply the style guide > > (<https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/>). > > > > You can check the status of your document at > > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php>. > > > > You will receive automatic notifications as your document changes > > queue state (for more information about these states, please see > > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/queue/>). When we have completed > > our edits, we will move your document to AUTH48 state and ask you > > to perform a final review of the document. > > > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > > > Thank you. > > > > The RFC Editor Team > > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
