Hi Sarah, > On Jun 23, 2026, at 11:03 AM, Sarah Tarrant <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Acee, > > Thank you for your reply. > > I have one followup question regarding the sourcecode in the XML. > >>> 5) This document appears to contain a formal language (or code / code >>> snippets that will be marked with <sourcecode> in this document's >>> XML file). See https://authors.ietf.org/formal-languages. >>> >>> * Does it validate? >>> >>> * Some formal languages (e.g., YANG) require certain reference entries >>> and/or boilerplate in the Security Considerations section (see the link >>> above for more information). Please confirm that this document matches >>> the current guidance for the language type. >>> >>> * Unless already indicated in a submitted XML file for this document, >>> please let us know what type should be used for the <sourcecode> element >>> for each module/snippet/etc. (See information about <sourcecode> types >>> at https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types.) >> >> This is taken care. > > > It appears that the artwork elements in Sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3, and 4 > and Appendix A should be marked as sourcecode. Could you confirm if these > need to be marked as sourcecode and, if so, which type (e.g., yang-tree, > yang, etc.)?
I don't see the value in marking. Can you enlighten me? Nevertheless: YANG-Tree: 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 3 YANG: 4 YANG JSON Data Example: Appendix A Thanks, Acee > > Thank you, > Sarah Tarrant > RFC Production Center > >> On Jun 23, 2026, at 5:11 AM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> See inline. >> >>> On Jun 22, 2026, at 4:58 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> CC: [email protected] >>> Subject: Document intake questions about draft-foo-00 >>> >>> 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.)? >> >> Please follow style guidelines for YANG documents. >> >> >>> >>> >>> 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>. >> >> None. The document references [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis] which will need to >> be updated to the RFC when published. >> >> >>> >>> >>> 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. >> >> >>> >>> >>> 5) This document appears to contain a formal language (or code / code >>> snippets that will be marked with <sourcecode> in this document's >>> XML file). See https://authors.ietf.org/formal-languages. >>> >>> * Does it validate? >>> >>> * Some formal languages (e.g., YANG) require certain reference entries >>> and/or boilerplate in the Security Considerations section (see the link >>> above for more information). Please confirm that this document matches >>> the current guidance for the language type. >>> >>> * Unless already indicated in a submitted XML file for this document, >>> please let us know what type should be used for the <sourcecode> element >>> for each module/snippet/etc. (See information about <sourcecode> types >>> at https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types.) >> >> This is taken care. >> >> >>> >>> >>> 6) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing >>> this >>> document? >> >> No >> >> Thanks, >> Acee > > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
