Hi Acee, My apologies :( I was trying to ask some preliminary questions as concisely as possible, but I can see how the routine questions sound oddly mechanical.
Thank you for your reply. Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Jun 17, 2026, at 3:48 PM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: > > The document has just been through an WG last call, AD review, IETF last > call, and IESG telechat review. > Hence, I find this form Email at best perfunctory, I won't say at worst 😉 See > responses inline. Please note > especially the response to question 7. > > >> On Jun 17, 2026, at 4:08 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 >> receive a >> reply. We require a reply, even if you don’t have guidance or don’t feel >> that you >> need to make any updates to the document. After we hear from you, your >> document >> will start moving through the queue. You will be able to review and approve >> our >> updates during Final Review (formerly 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? > > 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, >> 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.)? > > Follow conventions for YANG models (e.g., RFC 9907). > > >> >> >> 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>. > > References are good. [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis] is also on RFC queue. > > >> >> >> 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? > > No. Examples have the following note as required. > > Note: '\' line wrapping per [RFC8792]. > > > > >> >> >> 5) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for editing in >> kramdown-rfc? >> If so, please let us know and provide a self-contained kramdown-rfc file. >> For more >> information about this experiment, see: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=pilot_test_kramdown_rfc. > > > No. >> >> >> 6) Would you like to participate in the RPC Pilot Test for completing Final >> Review >> in GitHub? If so, please let us know and provide all author, AD, and/or >> document >> shepherd GitHub usernames. For more information about this experiment, see: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=rpc-github-phase-0-pilot-test. > > No. > >> >> >> 7) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this >> document? > > Yes - hopefully, the goal of 60 days on the RFC Editor Queue will be met. > > Acee -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
