Hi, Please see my reply below inline with [Qiufang]...
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2026 11:45 PM To: maqiufang (A) <[email protected]>; Qin Wu <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Document intake questions about draft-ietf-netmod-immutable-flag 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. [Qiufang] The authors have posted an update just one week ago, and after that, we have not identified any fix that are needed, thus we feel that no updates are necessary at this time. 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? [Qiufang] Yes, the text in the Abstract is still accurate. * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments sections current? [Qiufang] Yes, those sections are correct. 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>."). [Qiufang] The document uses some of the terms that are from other RFCs. Section 2. Conventions and Definitions has called it out explicitly, nothing else is special. * 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.)? [Qiufang] YANG statements, YANG data nodes should be used double quotes. "<>" should be used for datastore names, e.g., <running>. 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>. [Qiufang] All look good. 4) Is there any text that requires special handling? For example: * Are there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted? [Qiufang] No. * Are any sections that need to be removed before publication marked as such (e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942))? [Qiufang] Sec.1.3 and Appendix C need to be removed before publication. There are notes added to the RFC editor. * Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be edited the same way? [Qiufang] 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? [Qiufang] Yes, both the YANG module and examples are validated without any errors or warnings. * 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. [Qiufang] Yes, we confirm that the Security Considerations section matches the current IETF guidance for documents containing YANG modules. * 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.) [Qiufang] For the main standard and appendix YANG modules, type: YANG; For any XML examples, type: XML; For any JSON examples, type: JSON. 6) This document is part of Cluster 579: https://queue.rfc-editor.org/clusters/579/ * To help the reader understand the content of the cluster, is there a document in the cluster that should be read first? Next? If so, please provide the order and we will provide RFC numbers for the documents accordingly. If order is not important, please let us know. [Qiufang] The reader should read I-D.ietf-netmod-system-config first to understand the concept of system configuration. * Is there any text that has been repeated within the cluster document that should be edited in the same way (for instance, parallel introductory text or Security Considerations)? [Qiufang] No repeated text. * For more information about clusters, see: https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfc-publication-process#clusters * For a list of all current clusters, see: https://queue.rfc-editor.org/clusters/ 7) Because this document updates RFCs 8040 and 8526, please review the reported errata and confirm whether they have been addressed in this document or are not relevant: * RFC 8040 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc8040) [Qiufang] I have confirmed that they are not relevant. 8) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this document? [Qiufang] No, Nothing special that the RPC should be aware of while editing this document. Best regards, Qiufang -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
