RPC team- Please see our feedback in line below ***
0101001101100101011011010111000001100101011100100100011001101001 Jeremy Duncan IPv6 Architect, Managing Partner Tachyon Dynamics, Inc Phone: (703) 259-8550 x 103 Fax: (703) 259-8548 https://www.tachyondynamics.com -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2026 09:12 To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Jeremy Duncan <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Document intake questions about draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update [EXTERNAL] Verify links and attachments with sender. Author(s), 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) Please review the current version of the document: * Is the text in the Abstract still accurate? ***yes * 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>."). ***no other 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.)? ***I don't believe so 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>. 4) Is there any text that requires special handling? For example: ***yes, the section 3.3 rules. * Are there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? ***yes, the section 3.3 rules. Any change to these has caused considerable arguments. Any grammar or other change in this section should be avoided. * Are any sections that need to be removed before publication marked as such (e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942))? ***no * Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be edited the same way? ***no 5) Because this document updates RFC 6724, please review the reported errata and confirm whether they have been addressed in this document or are not relevant: * RFC 6724XX (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc6724) * RFC YYYY (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfcYYYY) ***we didn't touch any of the erratas as it's not updating these areas of what the erratas were identified for. 6) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this document? -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
