Hi Jeremy, Thank you for your reply!
Sincerely, Sarah Tarrant RFC Production Center > On Jun 25, 2026, at 3:01 PM, Jeremy Duncan > <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]
