Hi Acee, Athanasios, and Ravi, Acee - Thank you for the types list. When we mark sourcecode and the types in the XML, the idea is that later on users can easily extract code by type for their purposes.
Athanasios and Ravi - Since the email distribution list is generated from your datatracker profiles, please update them so that we can have the correct email addresses for Final Review (formerly AUTH48). Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Jun 23, 2026, at 10:39 AM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > Also, please update Ravi's and Athanasios' Email addresses to the ones in the > draft. The Email distribution list still contains the stale addresses (I have > updated above). > > Athanasios Kyparlis - [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > Ravi Parikh - [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > Thanks, > Acee > > >> On Jun 23, 2026, at 11:30 AM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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]
